State-dependent thinking: a comparison of waking and dreaming thought

Thinking is known to be state dependent but a systematic study of how thinking in dreams differs from thinking while awake has not been done. The study consisted of analyzing the dream reports of 26 subjects who, in addition to providing dream reports also provided answers to questions about their thinking within the dream. Our hypothesis was that thinking in dreams is not monolithic but has two distinct components, one that is similar to wake-state cognition, and another that is fundamentally different. We found that cognition within a dream scenario was similar to that of wake-state cognition, but that thinking about the scenario itself was deficient and very different than wake-state thinking.     

Changes in same-different laterality patterns as a function of practice and stimulus quality

Accuracy and reaction time (RT) of judgments about sameness vs. difference of (a) names of two letters and (b) shapes of two nonverbal forms were examined for stimuli presented to the center, left (LVF), and right (RVF) visual fields. For same-name letter pairs during Experiment I, responses were more accurate and faster for LVF than for RVF trials on an initial 90-trial block, but this difference was reversed by a third 90-trial block. The RVF advantage for RT was maintained over Trial Blocks 4 and 5, given during a second session, but had disappeared on Trial Blocks 6 through 9 as RT reached the same asymptotic level for both visual fields. No LVF-RVF differences were obtained at any level of practice for different-name letter pairs or for any of the form pairs. Experiment II replicated the shift from LVF toward RVF advantage that occurred over the first three trial blocks of Experiment I and demonstrated that such a shift does not occur when the letters are perceptually degraded. The results were discussed in terms of differences in cerebral hemisphere specialization for visuospatial vs. abstract stages of letter processing and changes with practice in the relative difficulty of these stages.     

Avoidance conditioning as a function of appetitive stimulus pretraining: Response and stimulus transfer effects

Pretrained appetitive discriminative stimuli were used as warning signals in subsequent avoidance learning. In Expt 1 identical responses were required in pretraining and in avoidance learning. An appetitive S+ facilitated avoidance learning in rats in comparison to S? or a stimulus previously uncorrelated with food. In Expt 2, the type of response in pretraining and in avoidance learning was varied. Groups with homogeneous responses in the two situations replicated Expt 1 results, whereas groups with different responses in pretraining and avoidance learning failed to show an advantage when S+ served as warning; in the heterogeneous response groups, S? was as effective as S+. Inhibitory factors in the heterogeneous groups were discussed as an explanation for these results.     

Reaction time to a second stimulus as a function of intensity of the first stimulus

Reaction time (RT) to the second of two stimuli presented in rapid succession was examined as a function of the intensity of the first stimulus (S₁). It was found that the delay in RT₂ was greater following a dim first stimulus than following a bright first stimulus. The magnitude of this increase corresponded to the difference in RTs to the two intensity levels of S₁. These results support the prediction of a single channel model of response selection. Examination of mean first RTs revealed a general elevation in latency of RT. However, since this increase was not influenced by the inter-stimulus interval (ISI) or by the intensity of the second stimulus (S₂), and since the same increase was found on “catch trials“ where no S₂ was presented, this increase is considered to be a function of change in set in the double response situation.     

Hue discrimination as a function of stimulus luminance

The relation between hue discrimination and stimulus luminance was investigated. It was found that discrimination was best at the highest luminance and deteriorated at the lowest, except in the yellow region.