Semantic control of selective attention

Summary It is argued that at least three modes of information processing should be distinguished: (1) sensory preprocessing; (2) activation and inhibition of knowledge structures, which run parallel and are unlimited in terms of capacity; (3) activated knowledge structures are used to make behavioral decisions. Decision processes are assumed to be sequentially organized because at any moment only one unit of the activated knowledge can be taken into account. Selective attention mainly refers to the third mode of processing. In this paper, potential rules are investigated that may determine what part of the activated knowledge influences making decisions about behavior. An intuitively plausible speculation about a rule of this kind is that activated knowledge is taken into account in the order of its activation level. Certain phenomena in selective attention are related to the operation of the rule, and some data are presented that seem to favor the validity of the rule's operation in the processing of multi-element visual displays.     

Finger width corrections in Fitts' law: implications for speed-accuracy research

This note points out that using the finger as a test probe in a Fitts task may lead to misleading results, because of the increased target tolerance resulting from the width of the finger pad. An experiment demonstrates the need to use a corrected target width when calculating the index of difficulty; without this correction, information processing rates are overestimated. An example is given of a developmental study in which the finger pad size changes with age. The resulting changes in the calculated rates of information processing are shown to be markedly different for the different age groups.     

Stimulus-response compatibility and sequential learning in the serial reaction time task

The serial reaction time (SRT) task is a commonly used paradigm to investigate implicit learning. In most studies the settings originally introduced by Nissen and Bullemer are replicated, i.e., subjects respond to a visuo-spatial sequence of stimulus locations by pressing spatially compatible arranged keys. The present experiment was designed to explore to what degree the sequential learning observed under these conditions depends on the use of locational sequences. Under otherwise identical conditions, first the S-R compatibility was reduced by using symbols instead of locations as stimuli, and second, the connectibility, i.e, the ease of connecting successive stimuli into coherent pattern, was varied. Effects on reaction times (RT) in the SRT task and on explicit memory in a generation task were evaluated. The results indicate that the connectibility of the stimuli has no effect at all and that S-R compatibility influences only the general RT level but does not seem to modify the learning process itself. Thus, the data are more consistent with the notion that learning is based primarily on the sequence of responses rather than on the sequence of stimuli. Moreover, a post hoc classification of subjects with regard to the amount of explicit sequence knowledge they have acquired reveals a striking modification of the general result: The RT difference between responses to locations and symbols vanishes in the course of learning for the complete explicit knowledge group. In order to account for this effect, we presume that the response control of these subjects shifts from stimuli to motor programs, so that RTs become increasingly independent of the stimuli used.     

Gender,Risk, and Religiousness: Can Power Control Provide the Theory?

Collett and Lizardo (2009) offer a model of gender differences that revisits and expands earlier research, in particular nascent ideas used by Miller and Hoffmann (1995) that were borrowed, in part, from a power-control theory of delinquency and crime. However, I am skeptical of their attempt to apply power-control theory as a general explanation of gender differences in religiousness. In this response piece, I first set the context by describing how Alan Miller and I initially approached our risk and religion work. I then point out where I think the research stream went awry and why recent studies of risk preferences and religion have failed to provide convincing evidence one way or the other. Finally, I offer an appraisal of Collett and Lizardo's work, with particular attention to why adopting power-control theory should be viewed with caution. I conclude with suggestions for future research on gender and religiousness.     

Explorations of anticipatory behavioral control (ABC): a report from the cognitive psychology unit of the University of Würzburg

The report comprises recent theoretical considerations, experimental research, and simulations which all aim at a clarification of anticipatory mechanisms of behavioral control.