Monaural right-ear advantage in a target-identification task

Subjects were monaurally presented with consonant—vowel syllables to the right or left ear, with or without simultaneous noise to the other ear. The subject's task on each trial was to indicate whether or not the item presented was the target item /ba/. A right-ear advantage in reaction time was obtained: 14 msec for target items, 6 msec for nontarget items. The size of this effect was comparable in the presence vs. absence of competing noise. No consistent individual differences were found in the size of the right-ear advantage for this task, although such differences were obtained in a dichotic-perception pretest.It is argued that data of this type do not permit inferences about the use of particular ear/hemisphere neural pathways.     

Liability,culpability, and luck

Philosophical Studies - This paper focuses on the role of culpability in determining the degree of liability to defensive harm, and asks whether there are any restrictions on when culpability is...     

Does interference between self and other perspectives in theory of mind tasks reflect a common underlying process? Evidence from individual differences in theory of mind and inhibitory control

Theory of mind (ToM), the ability to understand that other agents have different beliefs, desires, and knowledge than oneself, has been extensively researched. Theory of mind tasks involve participants dealing with interference between their self-perspective and another agent’s perspective, and this interference has been related to executive function, particularly to inhibitory control. This study assessed whether there are individual differences in self–other interference, and whether these effects are due to individual differences in executive function. A total of 142 participants completed two ToM (the director task and a Level 1 visual perspective-taking task), which both involve self–other interference, and a battery of inhibitory control tasks. The relationships between the tasks were examined using path analysis. Results showed that the self–other interference effects of the two ToM tasks were dissociable, with individual differences in performance on the ToM tasks being unrelated and performance in each predicted by different inhibitory control tasks. We suggest that self–other differences are part of the nature of ToM tasks, but self–other interference is not a unitary construct. Instead, self–other differences result in interference effects in various ways and at different stages of processing, and these effects may not be a major limiting step for adults’ performance on typical ToM tasks. Further work is needed to assess other factors that may limit adults’ ToM performance and hence explain individual differences in social ability.