Why do the effects of delaying reinforcement in animals and delaying feedback in humans differ? A working-memory analysis

Animal research has shown that reinforcement is substantially less effective when it is delayed, but in studies of human motor learning delays in providing feedback typically have much less effect. One possible explanation is that in human research participants know the response to be learned and can thus focus on it during the delay; that is not the case in experiments on animals. We tested this hypothesis using a task in which participants had minimal information on what movement was correct and found that, as in animal experiments, participants learned only when feedback was immediate. A second experiment confirmed that the effects of the delay depended on how many responses had to be held in working memory: the greater the memory load, the poorer the learning. The results point to the importance of activity during a delay on learning; implications for the teaching of motor skills are discussed.     

Why do animals differ in their susceptibility to geometrical illusions?

In humans, geometrical illusions are thought to reflect mechanisms that are usually helpful for seeing the world in a predictable manner. These mechanisms deceive us given the right set of circumstances, correcting visual input where a correction is not necessary. Investigations of non-human animals’ susceptibility to geometrical illusions have yielded contradictory results, suggesting that the underlying mechanisms with which animals see the world may differ across species. In this review, we first collate studies showing that different species are susceptible to specific illusions in the same or reverse direction as humans. Based on a careful assessment of these findings, we then propose several ecological and anatomical factors that may affect how a species perceives illusory stimuli. We also consider the usefulness of this information for determining whether sight in different species might be more similar to human sight, being influenced by contextual information, or to how machines process and transmit information as programmed. Future testing in animals could provide new theoretical insights by focusing on establishing dissociations between stimuli that may or may not alter perception in a particular species. This information could improve our understanding of the mechanisms behind illusions, but also provide insight into how sight is subjectively experienced by different animals, and the degree to which vision is innate versus acquired, which is difficult to examine in humans.     

Do humans ape? Or do apes human? Imitation and intention in humans (Homo sapiens) and other animals

A. Whiten, D. M. Custance, J.-C. Gomez, P. Teixidor, and K. A. Bard (1996) tested chimpanzees' (Pan troglodytes) and human children's (Homo sapiens) skills at imitation with a 2-action test on an "artificial fruit." Chimpanzees imitated to a restricted degree; children were more thoroughly imitative. Such results prompted some to assert that the difference in imitation indicates a difference in the subjects' understanding of the intentions of the demonstrator (M. Tomasello, 1996). In this experiment, 37 adult human subjects were tested with the artificial fruit. Far from being perfect imitators, the adults were less imitative than the children. These results cast doubt on the inference from imitative performance to an ability to understand others' intentions. The results also demonstrate how any test of imitation requires a control group and attention to the level of behavioral analysis.     

What do humans feel with mistreated humans,animals, robots,and objects? Exploring the role of cognitive empathy

Motivation and Emotion - The aim of this paper is to present a study in which we compare the degree of empathy that a convenience sample of university students expressed with humans, animals,...     

Why do we listen to music? A uses and gratifications analysis

Four 'uses and gratifications' studies investigated peoples' reasons for listening to music (Study 1); and whether these reasons differ significantly from those associated with other leisure activities (Study 2). In Study 3, an open-ended, qualitative research design was used to investigate why people listen to music. In Study 4, a cross-sectional design was used to investigate the possibility that people of different ages might listen to music for different reasons. Findings showed that there are a number of reasons why participants listen to music, comparison of which indicated that participants listen to music primarily to manage/regulate their moods. Comparison with other leisure activities indicated that for the most part, listening to music was rated better than other leisure activities at serving an individual's different needs. This versatility may explain why music is so important to people. Evidence was also found to suggest that the reasons for listening to music may change as people grow older.     

Attention in humans and animals: is there a capacity limitation at the time of encoding?

Investigators have suggested that pigeons have a limited capacity input channel and that as a result performance suffers when information load is great. This information overload hypothesis is based on converging findings from experiments using the matching-to-sample paradigm. Fundamental among these findings are that (a) performance improves as sample duration increases, (b) performance is better when the sample contains one relevant feature (elements) than when it contains two (compounds), and (c) this element superiority effect can be reduced by making the relevant feature of compound samples predictable. Experiments 1 and 2 show that these effects occur for humans as well. However, Experiments 3, 4, and 5 show that in humans at least some of these effects do not result from information overload at the time of encoding. Thus, the assertion that these effects do reflect such a limitation in pigeons must be reevaluated.     

Why do categorization effects occur in comparative judgment tasks?

Three experiments were conducted to understand what eliminates the symbolic distance effect for reaction times (RTs) when subjects learn that items belong to categories. Artificial city locations were judged, and artificial states served as categories. In Experiment 1, whether or not categories were presented and the amount of categorization practice were manipulated. Only those subjects who had practice categorizing cities into states showed a reduced symbolic distance effect for different-state pairs. Analyses of serial position curves indicated that categorization produced faster RTs to different-as compared with their adjacent same-state pairs and it also produced faster RTs for same-state pairs closer to the category border. The border seems to serve as an anchor and facilitates RTs. In Experiments 2a and 2b, distance judgments were made by subjects who either had or had not categorized artificial cities into states. Subjects who learned categories gave larger estimates of distance between cities belonging to different states than to cities belonging to the same state. Categorization seemed to place cities from different states farther apart in psychological space, making their locations more discriminable. This, along with the use of the category border as an anchor, might explain why categorization effects occur in this location judgment task.     

Why do People Disagree? Explaining and Endorsing the Possibility of Partiality in Judgments

The current study examines developing changes in children's intuitions about why disagreements about decisions might occur, focusing on what children understand about partiality and how it may vary depending on the context. Eighty children ages 6 to 13 years old and 20 adults were presented with stories in which there was a disagreement with the judge about who the winner of a contest should be. Participants were asked to generate their own explanations for why the disagreement may have occurred and to evaluate the plausibility of different explanations provided by the experimenter. Even 6-year-olds generated and endorsed partiality as a possible explanation for disagreement, although they did so at a lower rate than older children. A richer understanding of how context influences both the reasons for disagreement and the likelihood of partiality seems to develop over childhood.     

Do humans and nonhuman animals share the grouping principles of the iambic–trochaic law?

The iambic–trochaic law describes humans’ tendency to form trochaic groups over sequences varying in pitch or intensity (i.e., the loudest or highest sounds mark group beginnings), and iambic groups over sequences varying in duration (i.e., the longest sounds mark group endings). The extent to which these perceptual biases are shared by humans and nonhuman animals is yet unclear. In Experiment 1, we trained rats to discriminate pitch-alternating sequences of tones from sequences randomly varying in pitch. In Experiment 2, rats were trained to discriminate duration-alternating sequences of tones from sequences randomly varying in duration. We found that nonhuman animals group sequences based on pitch variations as trochees, but they do not group sequences varying in duration as iambs. Importantly, humans grouped the same stimuli following the principles of the iambic–trochaic law (Exp. 3). These results suggest the early emergence of the trochaic rhythmic grouping bias based on pitch, possibly relying on perceptual abilities shared by humans and other mammals, whereas the iambic rhythmic grouping bias based on duration might depend on language experience.     

Why do males and females differ? Children's beliefs about sex differences

The present paper focuses on children's beliefs about sex differences and how these are related to age and gender. Seven, ten, and fifteen year olds (N=427) were asked to give explanations for their beliefs about sex differences. In strong agreement with previous research and the cognitive-developmental theoretical framework, marked age differences were found: younger children were more likely than older children to emphasize biological and physical factors. Significant gender differences were also found, especially for 15 year olds. Girls were much more likely to attribute sex differences to social factors, and boys to biological factors. These gender differences were interpreted as being indicative of different life experiences of males and females, with females being more likely to have experienced conflicts between their own values about sex-role behavior and those of society. Findings were also interpreted as being consistent with the recent emphasis on gender schema. Nevertheless, it was argued that theories of gender schema need to take more account of content—of the beliefs that people hold about sex roles—and, in particular, that more attention be given to exploring gender differences in beliefs.     

Variability in the anatomy of the planum temporale and posterior ascending ramus: do right- and left handers differ?

The anatomy of the planum temporale (PT) and posterior ascending ramus (PAR) was studied in vivo in 67 healthy right- and left-handed adults using MRI-based morphometry. The left PT was significantly larger than the right, and there was a weakly significant effect of the right PAR larger than the left. A leftward PT asymmetry was found in 72%, and a rightward PAR asymmetry was found in 64% of the sample. The "typical" configuration of a larger left PT and larger right PAR co-occurred in 56% of the subjects studied, which was only slightly more often than predicted by chance. Eight of 67 subjects had "reversed" PT and PAR asymmetries, with consistent left and mixed handers over-represented in this group. Right PAR size was the only variable that predicted writing hand, and left PT size was the only measure that differed by sex. The left PT was expanded relative to the left PAR in 93% of the sample, suggesting that this configuration may be developmentally regulated and may be a critical substrate for the development of language. These findings demonstrate that important relationships exist between hand preference, and the anatomy of posterior cortical language areas.     

How do conspiratorial explanations differ from non-conspiratorial explanations? A content analysis of real-world online articles

The present research aims to identify unique characteristics of written conspiracy theories. In two pre-registered quantitative human-coded content analyses, we compared 36 pairs of conspiratorial and non-conspiratorial online articles about various events. As predicted, conspiratorial articles—compared to non-conspiratorial articles—contained less factual, more emotional and more threat-related information. Also, we predicted and found that conspiratorial articles presented more argumentation against the opposing standpoint and that they provided explanations that were more dispositional and less falsifiable. Contrary to our predictions, we did not consistently observe that conspiratorial articles presented less argumentation for their own standpoint. Also, we did not find consistent support that conspiratorial articles provided less information about the specific process or more information about the underlying goals of the respective events, or that conspiratorial explanations attributed the events to a lesser extent to situational factors. We discuss the relevance of our findings for the understanding of conspiracy theories.     

Why do Qualia and the Mind Seem Nonphysical?

In this article, I discuss several of the factors that jeopardize our understanding of the nature of qualitative experiences and the mind. I incorporate the view from neuroscience to clarify the naïve view from the first person perspective. I suggest that the most misleading factor in the understanding the nature of the mind and conscious processes is the transparency of experiences and the imperceptibility of the neurobiological processes that realize them. Transparency reflects the biological advantages provided to organisms by avoiding the proliferation of superfluous sensing and the regress implied in sensing the sensors and analyzers ad infinitum. The downside of simplicity and the price for biological efficiency is that through introspection, we cannot perceive the inner workings of the brain. Thus, the view from the first person perspective creates the pervasive illusion that the mind is nonphysical. Sensing the environment requires encoding information into neural surrogates, which I conceive as contingent processes that when incorporated into conscious processes become qualitative experiences. They are cognitive shortcuts with a variable degree of isomorphism, which partially falsify reality. Thus, the what-it-is-like is not the what-it-is. The first person perspective seemings should be corrected by the objective approach provided by neuroscience. To compensate for the contingency of experiences, organisms learn to rely on the aboutness of associated phenomenal concepts. Experiences have high biological value, because even in the absence of language, they allow organisms to make intelligent choices. Qualia are also necessary to ground words and language, which are essential to develop higher forms of cognition.     

When do visual and verbal memories conflict? The importance of working-memory load and retrieval

Examinations of interference between verbal and visual materials in working memory have produced mixed results. If there is a central form of storage (e.g., the focus of attention; N. Cowan, 2001), then cross-domain interference should be obtained. The authors examined this question with a visual-array comparison task (S. J. Luck & E. K. Vogel, 1997) combined with various verbal memory load conditions. Interference between tasks occurred if there was explicit retrieval of the verbal load during maintenance of a visual array. The effect was localized in the maintenance period of the visual task and was not the result of articulation per se. Interference also occurred when especially large silent verbal and visual loads were held concurrently. These results suggest central storage along with code-specific passive storage.     

Error detection in text: do feedback and familiarity help?

In the present study, the authors examined the extent to which familiarity and feedback (auditory and/or articulatory) might be beneficial to proofreading. Participants proofread unfamiliar and familiar (repeated) passages while (a) concurrently reading either aloud or silently, (b) concurrently listening to the passages being read to them, or (c) reading without either auditory or articulatory feedback. Errors were one-letter changes that transformed function words into contextually inappropriate words. Familiarity improved reading times largely irrespective of feedback, and it enhanced error detection only when auditory feedback was available to participants. Proofreaders' enhanced error detection in familiar text reflected a change in their sensitivity to errors rather than any change in the placement of the response criterion for reporting errors. These findings suggest that familiarity can produce two kinds of functional fluency, one involving speed of processing, which is largely independent of feedback, and the other concerned with accuracy of processing, which relies on feedback.     

Why do children learn to say "Broke"? A model of learning the past tense without feedback

Learning the English past tense is characterized by a U-shaped learning function for the irregular verbs. Existing cognitive models often rely on a sudden increase in vocabulary, a high token-frequency of regular verbs, and complicated schemes of feedback in order to model this phenomenon. All these assumptions are at odds with empirical data. In this paper a hybrid ACT-R model is presented that shows U-shaped learning without direct feedback, changes in vocabulary, or unrealistically high rates of regular verbs. The model is capable of learning the default rule, even if regular forms are infrequent. It can also help explore the question of why there is a distinction between regular and irregular verbs in the first place, by examining the costs and benefits of both types of verbs.     

Why do people change in therapy? A preliminary study

Why do people change in therapy? A preliminary study. This work represents the beginning of a new way to study the processes that can explain the therapeutic change. The method used is the observation and analysis of therapeutic sessions directly recorded and developed inside a behavioural approach. The category system tries to carry out a functional analysis of the therapist-client interaction which enables the identification of learning processes that work in clinical setting and explain success in therapy. Outcomes are provisional but show the utility of this initial trend of investigation to the comprehension of clinical phenomenon. Conclusions also emphasize the importance of associative learning processes on the therapeutic change.     

Why do fear and anger look the way they do? Form and social function in facial expressions

The origins of the appearances of anger and fear facial expressions are not well understood. The authors tested the hypothesis that such origins might lie in the expressions' resemblance to, respectively, mature and babyish faces in three studies. In Study 1, faces expressing anger and fear were judged to physically resemble mature and babyish faces. Study 2 indicated that characteristics associated specifically with babyishness are attributed to persons showing fear, whereas characteristics associated with maturity are attributed to persons showing anger. In Study 3, composite faces were used to minimize the possibility that the attributions were based on associations to the anger and fear emotions alone rather than to the physical resemblance of the expressions to static facial appearance cues. These results suggest that fear and anger expressions may serve socially adaptive purposes for those who show them, similar to the social adaptations associated with a babyish or mature facial appearance.     

How do we judge our confidence? Differential effects of meta-memory feedback on eyewitness accuracy and confidence

According to the cue–belief model, we assess confidence in our memories using self-credibility cues that reflect beliefs about our memory faculties. We tested the influence of meta-memory feedback on self-credibility cues in the context of eyewitness testimony, when feedback was provided prior to “testifying” via a memory questionnaire (Experiment 1) and after an initial memory questionnaire but before participants had to retake it (Experiment 2). Participants received feedback (good score, bad score, or none) on a fictitious scale purported to predict eyewitness memory ability. Those given good score feedback before testifying were more confident (but no more accurate) than those given bad score feedback. Feedback also affected confidence (good increased and bad decreased) and accuracy (good increased) after testifying but only on leading questions. These differential effects of meta-memory feedback on confidence for normal and leading questions are not explained by the cue–belief model. Implications for our confidence judgments are discussed.     

Why do measures of normal and disordered personality correlate? A study of genetic comorbidity

The genetic and environmental correlations between measures of normal (NEO-FFI) and abnormal personality (Dimensional Assessment of Personality Pathology: DAPP-BQ) were estimated in a sample of 545 volunteer general population twin pairs (269 monozygotic and 276 dizygotic pairs). The largest genetic correlations were observed between the 18 DAPP-BQ dimensions and NEO-FFI neuroticism (range = .05 to .81; median = .48), extraversion (range = -.65 to .33; median = -.28), agreeableness (range = -.65 to .00; median = -.38), and conscientiousness (range = -.76 to .52; median = -.31). The smallest genetic correlations were found between the DAPP-BQ dimensions and NEO-FFI openness (range = -.17 to .20; median = -.04). The environmental correlations are lower in magnitude but show the same pattern of correlations between DAPP-BQ and NEO-FFI scales. These results indicate that these two scales share a common broad-based genetic architecture, whereas the environmental influences show greater scale specificity.