Commentary on Corradi et al.’s (2019) new conception of aesthetic sensitivity: Is the ability conception dead?

Corradi et al. (British Journal of Psychology, 2019) argue that their new conception of visual aesthetic sensitivity (as responsiveness to aesthetic features in one’s preferences) presents several advantages in comparison with the current ability view of aesthetic sensitivity, usually defined as the ability to judge aesthetic stimuli in accordance with standards (The Journal of Psychology, 1964, 57 and 49). Although the measure they propose is interesting and presents advances to the field, we point to important issues. Notably, the authors conveniently base their comparison between the two conceptions on psychometric double standards, discard a century of research on aesthetic sensitivity by focusing on Eysenck’s speculations, and disguise an extension of already existing aesthetic preference tests (e.g., The Journal of Psychology, 1952, 33 and 199; Empirical Studies of the Arts, 2005, 23 and 165) as a redefinition of aesthetic sensitivity. We conclude that both aesthetic preference and aesthetic sensitivity research are legitimate objects of study, that the authors present interesting ideas to further the study of aesthetic preferences, but that their approach is not new and that its proposed renaming only adds confusion to the field.     

Libet’s intention reports are invalid: A replication of Dominik et al. (2017)

In the “Libet experiment” the onset of movement-related brain activity preceded the reported time of the conscious intention to move, suggesting that conscious intention may not play a role in initiating voluntary movements (Libet, Gleason, Wright, & Pearl, 1983). Dominik et al. (2017) provided evidence that the intention reports employed in the Libet experiment, which Libet et al. (1983) found to precede movement reports, are invalid. In the study by Dominik et al., intention reports preceded movement reports only when participants had prior experience making movement reports. Individuals without such experience reported intention around the same time as movement. These findings suggest that Libet’s intention reports do not reflect experiences of intention, but, rather, inferences based on prior experience with movement reports. Our study replicated the core findings of Dominik et al. We argue that Libet’s intention reports are invalid and explore the phenomenology of intention in the Libet experiment.     

Amplitude and Width Manipulations in Fitts' Paradigm: Comment on Heath et al. (2011) and Heath et al. (2016)

Heath, Weiler, Marriott, Elliott, and Binstead (2011 Heath, M., Weiler, J., Marriott, K. A., Elliott, D., &; Binstead, G. (2011). Revisiting Fitts and Peterson (1964): Width and Amplitude manipulations to the reaching environment elicit dissociable movement times. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 259–268.1.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and Heath, Samani, Tremblay, and Elliott (2016 Heath, M., Samani, A., Tremblay, L., &; Elliott, D. (2016). Fitts' theorem in oculomotor control: Dissociable movement times for amplitude and width manipulations. Journal of Motor Behavior, 48, 489–499.[Taylor &; Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) have claimed that there are dissociable movement times for amplitude and width manipulations in the Fitts' paradigm. This may to some extent be true, but the Heath et al. (2011 Heath, M., Weiler, J., Marriott, K. A., Elliott, D., &; Binstead, G. (2011). Revisiting Fitts and Peterson (1964): Width and Amplitude manipulations to the reaching environment elicit dissociable movement times. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 259–268.1.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) and Heath et al. (2016 Heath, M., Samani, A., Tremblay, L., &; Elliott, D. (2016). Fitts' theorem in oculomotor control: Dissociable movement times for amplitude and width manipulations. Journal of Motor Behavior, 48, 489–499.[Taylor &; Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) data do not support that contention, as shown in this comment. It is shown that data from the research of Heath et al. is not in the range of index of difficulty where ongoing visual control would be used and hence their fits of data to Fitts' law are spurious. The data of Heath et al. (2011 Heath, M., Weiler, J., Marriott, K. A., Elliott, D., &; Binstead, G. (2011). Revisiting Fitts and Peterson (1964): Width and Amplitude manipulations to the reaching environment elicit dissociable movement times. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 65, 259–268.1.[Crossref], [PubMed], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) for arm movements and for the primary eye saccade submovements of Heath et al. (2016 Heath, M., Samani, A., Tremblay, L., &; Elliott, D. (2016). Fitts' theorem in oculomotor control: Dissociable movement times for amplitude and width manipulations. Journal of Motor Behavior, 48, 489–499.[Taylor &; Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) are well correlated by the ballistic movement time equation of Hoffmann (1981 Hoffmann, E. R. (1981). An ergonomic approach to predetermined motion time systems. Proceedings of the 9th National Conference of the Institute of Industrial Engineers, Australia, 30–47. [Google Scholar]) and Gan and Hoffmann (1988 Gan, K.-C. &; Hoffmann, E. R. (1988). Geometrical conditions for ballistic and visually controlled movements. Ergonomics, 31, 829–839.[Taylor &; Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]). When the ballistic equation is used to model data for constant amplitude and constant target width conditions, the effects of the amplitude and width manipulations disappear. Other research indicates that the independent effects of movement amplitude occur due to changes in the time for the distance-covering phase of the movement.     

When Insurance Companies and Clinicians Pay Attention to Data,Everybody Wins: A Commentary on Koons,O’Rourke,Carter, and Erhardt (2013)

Insurance companies and clinicians may appear to be strange bedfellows, however, both have common objectives. This commentary describes how, using Koons, O’Rourke, Carter, and Erhardt (2013) as a model, CBT clinicians can learn to actively change the system to benefit both the providers and the clients. By doing so, we can increase the availability of evidence-based practices to a larger proportion of the population and not just individuals who can afford to pay out-of-network.     

A Review of: “Fairburn,C. G. (2008). Cognitive Behavior Therapy and Eating Disorders.”

Successful reports of behavioral treatment of encopresis describe interventions as unpleasant as the disorder: hospitalization, laxatives, prompted toileting, aversive consequences. The focus on soiling rather than on the constant constipation that precedes encopresis, on the reduction of soiling rather than on the acquisition of effective toilet use. Five normal chronically constipated children (four of whom were encopretic) were treated at home with combinations of: preparatory instructions, rewards for clean pants, reward for appropriate toileting (bowel movement in toilet). Once soiling was eliminated and appropriate bowel movements occured regularly, all families were taught to fade treatment contingencies. To determine the contribution of the toileting reward to treatment effectiveness, this reward was added to the other two treatment components in a multiple baseline across four cases; it provided a significant ingredient in short-term success. A fifth child achieved short-term success with only the instructions and the clean pants reward. Long-term results (11-20 months) revealed that the fifth child, who never received the toileting reward, was the only one who relapsed.