Transfer of matching performance in pigeons.

Three pigeons were given extensive training on three-key simultaneous matching problems using geometric-form and hue stimuli. After acquisition of matching, the birds were tested with pairs of stimuli involving one or both novel members. Matching during the test stimuli occurred less often than during the later stages of the acquisition phase, but more often than would occur if no transfer had taken place. Greater positive transfer was observed for problems that involved one, rather than two, novel stimuli. In the second phase of the experiment, previously trained birds were shifted to problems that required symbolic matching, i.e., the pigeons had to associate a particular center-key stimulus with a particular side-key stimulus. On each trial, one of two simuli was presented on the center key, and two other stimuli, different from those used on the center key, were displayed on the side keys. When the problem shift was introduced, correct responding was impaired, but remained considerably above chance level and quickly recovered in following sessions. The results were interpreted as favoring a stimulus-response-chaining account of matching behavior.     

Syntactic presupposition in sentence comprehension

Two experiments investigated the role of syntactic presupposition in sentence comprehension. In Experiment I subjects verified cleft, pseudocleft and factive complement sentences with respect to preceding context paragraphs, which contradicted either the assertion or the presupposition of the target sentence. Subjects took significantly longer to verify sentences with false presuppositions than sentences with false assertions. In Experiment II subjects verified cleft and pseudocleft sentences with respect to subsequently presented pictures. Once again, verification times for sentences with false presuppositions were significantly longer than verification times for sentences with false assertions. It was argued that these findings are more adequately explained by a “structural” hypothesis, than in terms of strategies designed to locate given and new information.     

THINKING ABOUT RELIGION AND EXPERIENCING THE BRAIN: EUGENE D'AQUILI'S BIOGENETIC STRUCTURAL THEORY OF ABSOLUTE UNITARY BEING

Abstract. Religious experiences, including mystical states and experience of the divine, are the ultimate reality of human existence that demand an account. Eugene d'Aquili weaves together that account using paradigms of thought which historically have made mutually exclusive claims about the nature of religious experience. While pointing out the deficiencies of the theory from a narrowly scientific point of view, this paper recognizes that neuroscience, or any other solitary discipline, is incompetent to explain religion. This paper emphasizes the significance and truth of d'Aquili's holistic theory, a religious vision which itself explains science and philosophy.     

Can Clinical Research Be Both Ethical and Scientific? A Commentary inspired by Rosser and Marquis

Problems with clinical research that create conflicts between doctors’ therapeutic and research obligations may be fueled by a rigid view of science as determiner of truth, a heavy reliance on statistics, and certain features of randomized clinical trials. 1 suggest some creative, feminist approaches to such research and explore ways to provide choice for patients and to use values in directing both therapy and science — to enhance the effectiveness of each.     

Expression of interpersonal aggression by angered and nonangered persons with the type A and type B behavior patterns

Thirty-seven subjects with the Type A or the Type B behavior pattern were first either angered or not angered in a problem-solving task by a confederate who posed as another subject. In a subsequent bogus learning experiment, the Type A and Type B subjects had the opportunity to punish or reward the confederate. The effectiveness of the anger manipulation was attested to by the fact that angered subjects had reliably higher pulse rates, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure. In the learning experiment, Type A subjects who had not been angered gave the confederate reliably higher levels of punishment than did Type B subjects, but there was not a difference in the levels of punishment given by Type A and Type B subjects who had been angered. There was not a difference between Type A and Type B subjects in the levels of reward they gave the confederate. The results provided behavioral evidence for aggression in persons with the Type A behavior pattern. The fact that the difference in aggression was limited to nonangered subjects was interpreted in terms of differences in attributions of responsibility.