Creating new memories that are quickly accessed and confidently held

In two experiments involving a total of 542 subjects, a series of slides depicting a burglary was shown. After the initial event, subjects were exposed to one or more narratives about the event that contained some misinformation or neutral information about four critical details. Finally, subjects were tested on their memories of what they saw, and their reaction times and confidence levels were measured. When subjects took a standard test in which the misinformation item was a possible response option, they responded very quickly and confidently when making this incorrect choice. Misled subjects responded as quickly and confidently to these "unreal" memories as they did to their genuine memories. It does not seem, then, that the misinformation effect arises from a large proportion of subjects who must resolve a conflict between two memories when they are tested, a conflict that would be expected to take time. When subjects took a modified test in which the misinformation item was not a possible response, misled subjects were as accurate as were controls, but they responded more slowly, regardless of whether they ultimately chose the right or wrong option. These findings indicate that misinformation does introduce some form of interference not detected by a simple test of accuracy.     

Determination of a behavioral transfer function: White-noise analysis of session-to-session response-ratio dynamics on concurrent VI VI schedules

Six pigeons were exposed to concurrent variable-interval schedules in which the programmed reinforcer ratios changed from session to session according to a pseudorandom binary sequence. This procedure corresponded to the stochastic identification paradigm (“white-noise experiment”) of systems theory and enabled the relation between log response ratios in the current session and log reinforcer ratios in all previous sessions to be determined. Such dynamic relations are called linear transfer functions. Both nonparametric and parametric representations of these, in the form of “impulse-response functions,” were determined for each bird. The session-to-session response ratios resulting from the session-to-session pseudorandom binary variations in reinforcer ratios were well predicted by the impulse-response functions identified for each pigeon. The impulse-response functions were well fitted by a second-order dynamic model involving only two parameters: a time constant and a gain. The mean time constant was 0.67 sessions, implying that the effects of abrupt changes in log reinforcer ratios should be 96% complete within about five sessions. The mean gain was 0.53, which was surprisingly low inasmuch as it should equal the sensitivity to reinforcement ratio observed under steady-state conditions. The same six pigeons were subjected to a similar experiment 10 months following the first. Despite individual differences in impulse-response functions between birds within each experiment, the impulse-response functions determined from the two experiments were essentially the same.     

Effects of Eyewitness Evidence on Plea-Bargain Decisions by Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys1

The present experiment tested the relative impact of two types of eyewitness evidence (identification and non identification) on plea-bargain decisions by prosecutors and defense attorneys. A hypothetical case involving a robbery was mailed to three prosecutors and three defense attorneys in each of 47 states. The subjects were randomly assigned to receive a case in which an eyewitness claimed: (a) the defendant was the criminal (identification), (b) the defendant was not the criminal (non identification), or (c) it was not possible to tell whether the defendant was the criminal (control). Similar to findings with jurors, both prosecutors and defense attorneys underutilized the non identification information in making their plea-bargain decisions. In the case of the prosecutors, there was evidence that the underutilization of eyewitness non identification was at least partially mediated by the prosecutors' predictions of juror reaction to the evidence.     

Inhibition of the LH Surge by Restraint Stress in Cyclic Rats: Studies on the Role of GABAA and GABAB Receptors

There is evidence that stress can alter the activity in the brain of gamma-aminobutyricacid (GABA), a neurotransmitter that has been implicated in the regulation of LH secretion. In the present study the role of GABA in the restraint stress-induced inhibition of the LH surge was investigated in the intact cyclic rat. Intracerebroventricular (icv) administration of the GABAA receptor agonist muscimol (0.1, 0.5 or 1 μg) 5 min before the presumed onset of the pro-oestrous LH surge (at 0900 h) caused a dose dependent suppression of the surge. A single dose of the GABAB receptor agonist baclofen (1 μg; icv) injected at 0855 h postponed the onset of the LH surge, and repeated injections at 0855 and 1130 h suppressed the surge. These data indicate that GABA-ergic activity in the brain can inhibit the LH surge in the cyclic rat via GABAA and GABAB receptors. Pro-oestrous rats were subjected to 5 hrs of restraint starting at 0855 h. Pretreatment with the GABAA receptor antagonist bicuculine (1 μg; icv) at 0840, 0940 and 1040 h or pretreatment with the GABAB receptor antagonist phaclofen (10 μg; icv) at 0840 h were ineffective in preventing the restraint-induced inhibition of the LH surge. The results suggest that GABAA and GABAB receptors are not involved in the inhibitory effect of restraint stress on the LH surge.     

Effects of Acute Stress or Centrally Injected Interleukin-1beta on Neuropeptide Expression in the Immune System

Acute stress stimulates the expression and release of corticotropin-releasing hormone (CRH) and arginine vasopressin (AVP) from the hypothalamus, and the pro-opiomelanocortin products beta-endorphin and ACTH from the anterior pituitary. These neuropeptides are also expressed in immune tissues, and it has been proposed that they may modulate immune responses to stress through paracrine mechanisms. We subjected rats to restraint stress or central injection of interleukin (IL)-1beta to determine whether these acute stimuli can alter the expression of neuropeptides in the spleen and thymus. Restraint stress significantly increased the contents of all these neuropeptides in thymic, but not splenic, extracts. A single icv injection of IL-1beta increased contents of CRH, AVP, ACTH and beta-endorphin in the spleens of both sham-operated and adrenalectomised (ADX) rats. IL-1beta increased thymic contents of CRH and ACTH in sham-operated rats but these increases were not observed in ADX rats. These results suggest that the effects of IL-1beta on neuropeptide expression in the spleen are independent of glucocorticoids, whereas IL-1beta stimulation of neuropeptide expression in the thymus is dependent on circulating glucocorticoids. There were significant correlations between increases in CRH, ACTH and beta-endorphin in the spleen, and between CRH and ACTH in the thymus, consistent with the suggestion that IL-1beta-induced increases in ACTH and beta-endorphin may be mediated through CRH. These results provide evidence that stressors can directly influence neuropeptide expression in immune tissues. Thus stress may influence immune functions through paracrine mechanisms involving locally synthesised neuropeptides as well as through activation of the hypothalamo-pituitary-adrenal axis.     

NEEDED:

Abstract— The significance test as currently used is a disaster Whereas most researchers falsely believe that the significance test has an error rate of 5%, empirical studies show the average error rate across psychology is 60%—12 times higher than researchers think it to be The error rate for inference using the significance test is greater than the error rate using a coin toss to replace the empirical study. The significance test has devastated the research review process. Comprehensive reviews cite conflicting results on almost every issue. Yet quantitatively accurate review of the same results shows that the apparent conflicts stem almost entirely from the high error rate for the significance test. If 60% of studies falsely interpret their primary results, then reviewers who base their reviews on the interpreted study "findings" will have a 100% error rate in concluding that there is conflict between study results.