Affectivity in Its Relation to Memory

It seems obvious that various feelings (various kinds of affectivity) are memorized, forgotten, and recollected to various degrees. Some of them are forgotten. Some of those forgotten can be recollected, while others are lost forever. For example, short and long-lasting feelings and shallow and deep feelings are memorized and remembered in different ways. In this paper I analyse from a conceptual point of view several categories of memory-of-feelings and offer a comprehensive map of them. In the end, the richness of categories in the realm of memory is interpreted as a proof of the intricacy of affectivity.     

Repetition costs in word identification: evaluating a stimulus–response integration account

Stimulus repetition facilitates performance in many experimental contexts. However, an episodic approach to interpreting repetition effects suggests that repetition effects should depend on how stimuli are encoded. In Experiments 1-3, stimulus repetition in a word identification task led to a cost rather than a benefit in performance, but only when the prime was presented for a relatively long duration. One account of these results is that long prime durations allow integration between stimulus and response codes to occur, which in turn can interfere with responding to a following identical target. In Experiment 4, a stimulus intensity based episodic specificity effect that was insensitive to the proportion of repeated trials supported this stimulus-response integration account.     

Is the psychological refractory period effect for ideomotor compatible tasks eliminated by speed-stress instructions?

It has been argued that the psychological refractory period (PRP) effect is eliminated with two ideomotor compatible tasks when instructions stress fast and simultaneous responding. Three experiments were conducted to test this hypothesis. In all experiments, Task 1 required spatially compatible manual responses (left or right) to the direction of an arrow, and Task 2 required saying the name of the auditory letter A or B. In Experiments 1 and 3, the manual responses were keypresses made with the left and right hands, whereas in Experiment 2 they were left-right toggle-switch movements made with the dominant hand. Instructions that stressed response speed reduced reaction time and increased error rate compared to standard instructions to respond fast and accurately, but did not eliminate the PRP effect on Task 2 reaction time. These results imply that, even when response speed is emphasized, ideomotor compatible tasks do not bypass response selection.