Response stereotypy without automaticity: Not quite involuntary attention in the pigeon

Previous research has shown that when pigeons are required to peck each of two keys four times in any order for reinforcement, stereotyped response sequences develop, though they are not required by the task. However, despite this stereotypy, sequences are not automatized. They require sufficient attention that sequence performance is disrupted by a concurrent, delayed matching-to-sample task. In the present experiments, pigeons were required to execute response sequences and delayed matching-to-sample concurrently. Experiment 1 showed that the matching task disrupts sequence performance even when the matching sample stimuli do not have to be processed concurrently with sequence execution. The presence of sample stimuli during sequence execution seems to command attention even if the sample stimuli are also available for processing when sequences are not being executed. Experiment 2 used the directed forgetting technique to show that pigeons do seem able to ignore sample stimuli if they are given information that tells them they will not be required to remember those stimuli later. Together, the experiments suggest attentional mechanisms in the pigeon that are not quite involuntary.     

Words and hemifields: do the hemispheres enjoy equal opportunity?

A common technique in research into cerebral asymmetry in both normal and clinical populations involves the use of lateralized visual displays. The validity of this approach depends on several generally implicit assumptions about the character of the cognitive processes involved. For example, when words are used as stimuli, cognitive processing is assumed to involve either "whole-word" or "ends-in" analysis. In this way, both hemispheres are assumed to have equal opportunities to recognize the word. These assumptions are critical, because if they are wrong, explanations based on established perceptual principles may provide a sufficient and more parsimonious explanation for hemifield asymmetries than hemispheric specialization theories. This point is developed and illustrated with particular reference to word recognition and classification. From a purely perceptual viewpoint, the right visual field advantage observed in tasks using word stimuli is to be expected given the presence of systematic biases in favor of initial characters or features of words and the relationship between retinal eccentricity and visual acuity. In other words, there is no need nor justification for a hemispheric account of visual field differences in such tasks. Some of the limiting conditions and theoretical implications of this argument are identified and discussed.     

The three-factor structure of the Eysenck personality inventory revealed by a two-step confirmatory procedure

Evidence for the existence of the assumed three-subscale structure of the Eysenck Personality Inventory has been persistent but tenuous. It was suggested that a substantial reason for this may be the discrepancy between the numbers of items in the Lie (L) scale (9 items) and those in the other two scales [Neuroticism (N) and Extraversion (E)] which have 24 items in each. A two-step confirmatory procedure to circumvent this problem was proposed, involving a two-factor analysis of the Neuroticism and Extraversion items, followed by a three-factor analysis of equal numbers of N, E and L scale items. An analysis of the responses of 386 undergraduates demonstrating the proposed procedure revealed in the first step, quite unequivocally, the presence of Neuroticism and Extraversion factors, and in the second step, a third factor clearly congruent with the L scale.