Is there a modality effect? Evidence for visual recency and suffix effects

In Experiment 1, four groups of 16 subjects performed ordered recall of six-syllable lists in both suffix and nonsuffix conditions. Sequential presentation of the lists varied for each group. In the auditory presentation, the syllables were delivered from one location only and were read aloud by the subjects. For the visual, spatially nondistributed presentation, the syllables appeared in one location only and were read silently. For visual, spatially distributed presentations, the syllables were spread out either vertically or horizontally and were read silently. Very robust recency and suffix effects were found in the auditory presentation, as well as in visual, spatially distributed presentations. In Experiment 2, 16 subjects performed ordered recall of visually presented lists with the items spread out vertically and conflicting spatial and temporal orders. A reliable recency effect was found for the final block of trials. In Experiment 3, 16 subjects performed ordered recall in the same conditions as in Experiment 2, except that they were instructed to recall the temporal order in which the spatial positions would be filled in. A bow-shaped curve and a strong recency effect were obtained.     

Does prime modality influence morphological processing?

Facilitation among morphologically related words generally is impervious to the prefixed or suffixed structure of primes and targets. A notable exception arises, however, when both primes and targets are suffixed. More specifically, when primes are auditory and targets are visual, facilitation for a suffixed target (e.g., payment) is absent when it follows a prime (e.g., payable) that is morphologically related and suffixed (Marslen-Wilson, Tyler, Waksler, & Older, 1994). To account for null facilitation (viz., the "suffix-suffix" effect), Marslen-Wilson and his colleagues posit inhibitory links between suffixes of morphological relatives. The present study assesses the generality of the "suffix-suffix" effect. When morphological facilitation is assessed relative to an orthographically related baseline, suffixed primes facilitate derivationally as well as inflectionally related morphological targets when primes are visual as well as auditory in both the lexical decision and naming tasks. The present findings call into question lexical models that posit inhibitory links between suffixes of morphological relatives.     

Risk-induced neophobia: does sensory modality matter?

Recent studies have documented that exposure to high levels of background risk can induce neophobic predator avoidance in prey animals, whereby they respond to any novel cue with an anti-predator response. Such phenotypically plastic predator avoidance may allow prey to maximize anti-predator benefits in variable risk environments. It remains poorly understood whether risk assessment information from different sensory modalities can be integrated to induce generalized, cross-sensory system neophobic responses. Here, we directly test this hypothesis by exposing juvenile convict cichlids (Amatitlania nigrofasciata) to high- versus low-risk environments using either conspecific alarm cue (chemosensory risk) or a model avian predator (visual/mechanical risk) and testing their response to a novel chemosensory cue (Experiment 1) or visual cue (Experiment 2). Our results suggest that regardless of the sensory modality used to increased perceived risk, cichlids pre-exposed to high-risk conditions exhibited increased predator avoidance in response to any novel visual or chemical cue. As expected, cichlids pre-exposed to low-risk conditions did not display any neophobic responses. Our results suggest that induced neophobia is not cue specific; rather, it may function as a generalized response to perceived predation risk.     

Does treatment modality affect career counseling effectiveness?

This meta-analysis involved the direct comparison of treatment modalities used in career interventions. In general, interventions that did not involve a counselor were found to be less effective than other modalities. Results also indicated that workshops or structured groups tended to produce better outcomes than non-structured career counseling groups. Furthermore, participants who used a career computer system supplemented by counseling had better outcomes than those who just used a computer system. Many of the comparisons involved comparing counselor-free interventions to other counselor-free interventions; however, this analysis did not find any significant moderators to effect size variation. There was also significant variation in workshops/structured groups and additional research is needed to analyze workshop content and client attributes.     

Does the testing effect depend on presentation modality?

We examined whether the testing effect generalizes to an auditory presentation modality. Five lists of unrelated words (Experiment 1) and related words (Experiment 2) were presented to participants, half of whom studied them visually and half studied them auditorily. Participants in the study-only condition performed a short distractor task following lists 1–4, whereas those in the testing condition completed a short distractor task and then attempted to recall each list. Both groups were subsequently tested on List 5 and on all five lists 30 min later. In both experiments, we found a testing effect for both List 5 and for the final cumulative recall test. However, the effect did not interact with study modality, despite the fact that proactive interference was greater following auditory study. These results have important implications for educational practice, suggesting that initial testing is important for materials presented in auditory as well as visual formats.     

Which modality is best for presenting navigation instructions?

Three experiments involved college students receiving and following instructions of various lengths for navigating in a three-dimensional space displayed on a computer screen. The purpose was to evaluate which is the best modality for presenting navigation instructions so that they can be executed successfully. Single modalities (read, hear, and see) were considered along with dual modalities presented simultaneously or successively. It was found that when there were differences between single modalities, generally execution accuracy was best for see and worst for read. Information presented in two modalities did not yield better accuracy than information presented twice in a single modality. Also, the ordering of modalities depended on the extent of practice. Thus, presentation modality does not have a consistently large effect on receiving and following navigation instructions. Repetition and the amount of practice are much more important variables than is presentation modality in determining how well navigation instructions are followed.     

Do response modality effects support multiprocessor models of divided attention?

Some studies have suggested that dual-task interference is greatly reduced when tasks requiring very different types of responses (e.g., manual and vocal) are combined. However, in those studies, the order of stimuli varied unpredictably. In Experiments 1 and 2, variable stimulus order greatly inflated interference between two manual tasks, whereas interference between a manual and a vocal task was only slightly exacerbated. However, central interference (the psychological refractory period) persisted even with the manual/vocal combination. Selection of 2 manual responses with unknown stimulus order may require a special strategy to preclude intertask intrusion errors. Experiment 3 demonstrated that such errors could be provoked with speed stress. Together, these results reconcile response modality effects with the response selection bottleneck model for dual-task interference (once it is suitably amended).     

The role of input–output modality compatibility in task switching

Input–output (I–O) modality compatibility refers to the similarity of stimulus modality and modality of response-related sensory consequences. A previous study found higher switch costs in task switching in I–O modality incompatible tasks (auditory-manual and visual-vocal) than in I–O modality compatible tasks (auditory-vocal and visual-manual). However, these tasks had spatially compatible S–R mappings, which implied dimensional overlap (DO). DO may have led to automatic activation of the corresponding compatible responses in the incorrect response modality, thus increasing interference effects. The present study was aimed to examine the influence of DO on I–O modality compatibility effects. In two experiments, we found that I–O modality compatibility affects task switching even in tasks without DO, which even tended to result in further increased modality influences. This finding suggests that I–O modality mappings affect response selection by affecting between-task cross-talk not on the level of specific response codes but on the level of modality-specific processing pathways.     

How modality specific is the iambic-trochaic law? Evidence from vision

The iambic-trochaic law has been proposed to account for the grouping of auditory stimuli: Sequences of sounds that differ only in duration are grouped as iambs (i.e., the most prominent element marks the end of a sequence of sounds), and sequences that differ only in pitch or intensity are grouped as trochees (i.e., the most prominent element marks the beginning of a sequence). In 3 experiments, comprising a familiarization and a test phase, we investigated whether a similar grouping principle is also present in the visual modality. During familiarization, sequences of visual stimuli were repeatedly presented to participants, who were asked to memorize their order of presentation. In the test phase, participants were better at remembering fragments of the familiarization sequences that were consistent with the iambic-trochaic law. Thus, they were better at remembering fragments that had the element with longer duration in final position (iambs) and fragments that had the element with either higher temporal frequency or higher intensity in initial position (trochees), as compared with fragments that were inconsistent with the iambic-trochaic law or that never occurred during familiarization.     

Dual-task automatization: The key role of sensory–motor modality compatibility

How do people automatize their dual-task performance through bottleneck bypassing (i.e., accomplish parallel processing of the central stages of two tasks)? In the present work we addressed this question, evaluating the impact of sensory–motor modality compatibility—the similarity in modality between the stimulus and the consequences of the response. We hypothesized that incompatible sensory–motor modalities (e.g., visual–vocal) create conflicts within modality-specific working memory subsystems, and therefore predicted that tasks producing such conflicts would be performed less automatically after practice. To probe for automaticity, we used a transfer psychological refractory period (PRP) procedure: Participants were first trained on a visual task (Exp. 1) or an auditory task (Exp. 2) by itself, which was later presented as Task 2, along with an unpracticed Task 1. The Task 1–Task 2 sensory–motor modality pairings were either compatible (visual–manual and auditory–vocal) or incompatible (visual–vocal and auditory–manual). In both experiments we found converging indicators of bottleneck bypassing (small dual-task interference and a high rate of response reversals) for compatible sensory–motor modalities, but indicators of bottlenecking (large dual-task interference and few response reversals) for incompatible sensory–motor modalities. Relatedly, the proportion of individuals able to bypass the bottleneck was high for compatible modalities but very low for incompatible modalities. We propose that dual-task automatization is within reach when the tasks rely on codes that do not compete within a working memory subsystem.

     

Matching auditory and visual signals: is sensory modality just another feature?

In order to perceive the world coherently, we need to integrate features of objects and events that are presented to our senses. Here we investigated the temporal limit of integration in unimodal visual and auditory as well as crossmodal auditory-visual conditions. Participants were presented with alternating visual and auditory stimuli and were asked to match them either within or between modalities. At alternation rates of about 4 Hz and higher, participants were no longer able to match visual and auditory stimuli across modalities correctly, while matching within either modality showed higher temporal limits. Manipulating different temporal stimulus characteristics (stimulus offsets and/or auditory-visual SOAs) did not change performance. Interestingly, the difference in temporal limits between crossmodal and unimodal conditions appears strikingly similar to temporal limit differences between unimodal conditions when additional features have to be integrated. We suggest that adding a modality across which sensory input is integrated has the same effect as adding an extra feature to be integrated within a single modality.     

Interference effects of stimulus–response modality pairings in dual tasks and their robustness

Recent evidence suggests that the degree of interference in dual-task situations depends crucially on the pairings of input- and output modalities of the two component tasks with increased dual-task costs for modality incompatible (i.e., visual–vocal and auditory–manual) compared to modality compatible (i.e., visual–manual and auditory–vocal) dual tasks. These effects of modality pairings in dual tasks have been related to the overlap of non-preferred processing pathways in modality incompatible tasks. Until now, modality compatibility has not yet been related to other sources of interference in a dual-task context, such as stimulus–response (S–R) compatibility or crosstalk. In the present study, we conducted two experiments using the paradigm of the psychological refractory period (PRP) to test the effects of S–R compatibility and crosstalk on the effects of modality compatibility in temporally overlapping task situations. Experiment 1 revealed an overadditive interaction between stimulus onset asynchrony and modality compatibility for tasks with S–R compatible mappings, indicating that modality compatibility effects are present in different task situations, even when S–R mappings are otherwise compatible. In Experiment 2, we aimed at pinpointing the boundaries of the effects of modality compatibility in dual-task situations. We showed that additional sources of dual-task interference in a modality compatible dual task could overwrite the pronounced PRP effect previously shown for modality incompatible tasks. Taken together, these data provide new evidence that the specific types of stimulus–response modality pairings are an additional factor that might interact with other sources of interference in dual-task situations.     

What predicts first date success? A longitudinal study of modality switching in online dating

This study uses a longitudinal design to investigate the effects of online dating sites on first date success. Participants were surveyed before their first date with someone from an online dating site (N = 186) and again after meeting their partner in person (N = 94). As part of the survey, they also supplied the e‐mails they had sent to their partner through the dating site so their actual communication could be examined. Findings indicated that first date success was predictable from features of participants' online impressions and relational dynamics. The results are discussed in terms of their theoretical and methodological contributions to the literature on relationship development, as well as their practical implications for online dating sites and users.     

Does the rose still smell as sweet? Item variability across test forms and revisions

This article examines item stability when the same item appears in different contexts. The 1st section considers the assumptions in classical test theory and item response theory concerning the relationship between the item and the trait it is presumed to measure. The 2nd section presents contextualist challenges to the measurement theory assumptions about item properties and shows the instability of item characteristics across different testing contexts. The 3rd section describes methods for checking the relationship between items and traits. Classical test methods, item response methods, and structural equation methods for assessing item stability are reviewed. The instability of item characteristics across contexts should caution researchers to assess, and not assume, that items operate the same way on different test versions. Item instability also indicates the need for a more detailed understanding of the psychological processes that occur between item and answer.     

Reflections on using group therapy as a treatment modality—Why,how, for whom,and when: A guide to clinicians,supervisors, and instructors

This paper emphasizes the potential of group forces for benefit or harm in group therapy as well as human development. Clinical, experimental-historical, and experiential evidence is cited in order to assess methods for harnessing group forces effectively. Ways in which group therapy is particularly valuable for enabling individuals to develop interpersonal skills, resist group pressure, improve communicative skills, deal with problems of inferiority and pessimism, be responsive to feedback, deal with resistance and transference, and manage problems in the working through phase of therapy are focused on. Another emphasis is on how group therapy technique differs from, supplements, and improves on the effectiveness of individual therapy alone. Crucial problems of patient selection and placement are explored, as is the idea that doing group therapy helps the therapist deal with countertransference problems and increases overall effectiveness and personal growth.Dr. Fenster is Professor of Psychology and was founding Chairman of the Psychology Department at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. This paper was written while he was on sabbatical leave and serving as Coordinator of Group Therapy in the Psychiatry Department at Brookdale Hospital Medical Center.     

Seeing or hearing? Perceptual independence,modality confusions,and crossmodal congruity effects with focused and divided attention

Observers were given brief presentations of pairs of simultaneous stimuli consisting of a visual and a spoken letter. In the visual focused-attention conditon, only the visual letter should be reported; in the auditory focused-attention condition, only the spoken letter should be reported; in the divided-attention condition, both letters, as well as their respective modalities, should be reported (forced choice). The proportions of correct reports were nearly the same in the three conditions (no significant divided-attention decrement), and in the divided-attention condition, the probability that the visual letter was correctly reported was independent of whether the auditory letter was correctly reported. However, with a probability much higher than chance, the observers reported hearing the visual stimulus letter or seeing the spoken stimulus letter (modality confusions). The strength of the effect was nearly the same with focused as with divided attention. We also discovered a crossmodal congruity effect: Performance was better when the two letters in a stimulus pair were the same than when they differed in type.     

When is a Schema Not a Schema? On a Remark by Suszko

Studia Logica - A 1971 paper by Roman Suszko, ‘Identity Connective and Modality’, claimed that a certain identity-free schema expressed the condition that there are at most two objects...