Effects of alcohol intoxication on risk taking, strategy, and error rate in visuomotor performance.

Adult men (N = 44) participated for 2 days (alcohol vs. placebo treatment) in a double-blind, crossover experiment. Performance on the Digit Symbol Substitution Task (DSST) and a visuomotor (VM) task was measured 4 times each day. On the alcohol-treatment day, data were obtained once during ascending breath alcohol levels (BALs), once during maximal BALs (0.05 or 0.10), and twice during descending BALs. Data were collected at the same time points on the placebo-treatment day. Limited evidence for acute tolerance was obtained with the DSST, but error rates on the VM task were higher during maximal and descending BALs. Error rates remained near placebo values, and participants displayed slightly greater caution, while BALs were ascending. Strategy scores on the VM task exceeded placebo scores during maximal intoxication. Data interpretation is focused on individuals in higher level (e.g., professional) positions.     

Spatial attention in Ponzo-like patterns.

A variant of Ponzo's pattern was devised by drawing converging oblique lines at the ends of each of two horizontal lines that were located directly one above the other. Pairs of converging or diverging fins (either between or outside the horizontal shafts) were systematically removed. The results showed that, as predicted by integrative field theory, oblique lines between the shafts produced more distortion than did oblique lines outside the shafts. Also, it was shown that the attentive field construct in integrative field theory was crucial for predicting patterns of means and variances in this experiment. The modified Ponzo effect was shown to have much in common with the classical Müller-Lyer illusion. The subtle differences between the two were explained by proposing that the size of the optimum attentive field was larger in the Ponzo tasks than in the Müller-Lyer tasks because expansion fins are found on both shafts in the Ponzo-like figure.     

Adaptation to auditory motion in the horizontal plane: effect of prior exposure to motion on motion detectability.

Thresholds for auditory motion detectability were measured in a darkened anechoic chamber while subjects were adapted to horizontally moving sound sources of various velocities. All stimuli were 500-Hz lowpass noises presented at a level of 55 dBA. The threshold measure employed was the minimum audible movement angle (MAMA)--that is, the minimum angle a horizontally moving sound must traverse to be just discriminable from a stationary sound. In an adaptive, two-interval forced-choice procedure, trials occurred every 2-5 sec (Experiment 1) or every 10-12 sec (Experiment 2). Intertrial time was "filled" with exposure to the adaptor--a stimulus that repeatedly traversed the subject's front hemifield at ear level (distance: 1.7 m) at a constant velocity (-150 degrees/sec to +150 degrees/sec) during a run. Average MAMAs in the control condition, in which the adaptor was stationary (0 degrees/sec,) were 2.4 degrees (Experiment 1) and 3.0 degrees (Experiment 2). Three out of 4 subjects in each experiment showed significantly elevated MAMAs (by up to 60%), with some adaptors relative to the control condition. However, there were large intersubject differences in the shape of the MAMA versus adaptor velocity functions. This loss of sensitivity to motion that most subjects show after exposure to moving signals is probably one component underlying the auditory motion aftereffect (Grantham, 1989), in which judgments of the direction of moving sounds are biased in the direction opposite to that of a previously presented adaptor.     

Preference can be more powerful than detection of oddity as a test of discriminability.

Subjects presented with sets of three samples, two of distilled water and one of tap water, were significantly more consistent in choosing the tap water as preferable than they were in identifying it as the odd sample in the set. The result is opposite to the prediction of high-threshold models of sensory discrimination, which say that if a difference is not noticed, preferences will be random, whereas if a difference is noticed, preferences may still be in either direction. The result can be quantitatively explained by a model advanced by Frijters to explain an analogous anomaly found with the triangle test used in the food industry. Applying his model to the observed proportions yields essentially equivalent estimates of sensory difference (d' = 1.5, approximately) from the two tasks, and a direction of preference almost unanimously in favor of the tap water that was used. Since the model predicts that the proportion of subjects choosing the odd item will depart further from chance in the preference task than in the oddity task, the former has greater power to reject the null hypothesis of no sensory difference if one exists and if preference is overwhelmingly in one direction.