Memory conformity: can eyewitnesses influence each other's memories for an event?

The current study investigated memory conformity effects between individuals who witness and then discuss a criminal event, employing a novel procedure whereby each member of a dyad watches a different video of the same event. Each video contained unique items that were thus seen only by one witness. Dyads in one condition were encouraged to discuss the event before each witness (individually) performed a recall test, while in a control condition dyads were not allowed to discuss the event prior to recall. A significant proportion (71%) of witnesses who had discussed the event went on to mistakenly recall items acquired during the discussion. There were no age‐related differences in susceptibility to these memory conformity effects in younger (18–30 years) as compared to older (60–80 years) participants. Possible social and cognitive mechanisms underlying the distortions of memory due to conformity are discussed. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Thomas P. Kasulis,Intimacy or Integrity: Philosophy and Cultural Difference

International Journal for Philosophy of Religion -     

Why Higher Working Memory Capacity May Help You Learn: Sampling,Search, and Degrees of Approximation

Algorithms for approximate Bayesian inference, such as those based on sampling (i.e., Monte Carlo methods), provide a natural source of models of how people may deal with uncertainty with limited cognitive resources. Here, we consider the idea that individual differences in working memory capacity (WMC) may be usefully modeled in terms of the number of samples, or “particles,” available to perform inference. To test this idea, we focus on two recent experiments that report positive associations between WMC and two distinct aspects of categorization performance: the ability to learn novel categories, and the ability to switch between different categorization strategies (“knowledge restructuring”). In favor of the idea of modeling WMC as a number of particles, we show that a single model can reproduce both experimental results by varying the number of particles—increasing the number of particles leads to both faster category learning and improved strategy‐switching. Furthermore, when we fit the model to individual participants, we found a positive association between WMC and best‐fit number of particles for strategy switching. However, no association between WMC and best‐fit number of particles was found for category learning. These results are discussed in the context of the general challenge of disentangling the contributions of different potential sources of behavioral variability.     

Letter legibility and visual word recognition

Word recognition performance varies systematically as a function of where the eyes fixate in the word. Performance is maximal with the eye slightly left of the center of the word and decreases drastically to both sides of thisoptimal viewing position. While manipulations of lexical factors have only marginal effects on this phenomenon, previous studies have pointed to a relation between the viewing position effect (VPE) and letter legibility: When letter legibility drops, the VPE becomes more exaggerated. To further investigate this phenomenon, we improved letter legibility by magnifying letter size in a way that was proportional to the distance from fixation (e.g., TABLE). Contrary to what would be expected if the VPE were due to limits of acuity, improving the legibility of letters has only a restricted influence on performance. In particular, for long words, a strong VPE remains even when letter legibility is equalized across eccentricities. The failure to neutralize the VPE is interpreted in terms of perceptual learning: Since normally, because of acuity limitations, the only information available in parafoveal vision concerns low-resolution features of letters; even when magnification provides better information, readers are unable to make use of it.     

The Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale: Confirmatory Factor Analytic Findings

The psychometric properties of the Yale-Brown Obsessive-Compulsive Scale (Y-BOCS) have recently been heavily examined. Specifically, a number of researchers have been interested in determining the factor structure of this scale to find whether it best forms a one, two, or three factor model. The present study continued this examination by considering different scaling models using confirmatory factor analysis with a sample of individuals diagnosed with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). One hundred and forty-six individuals diagnosed with OCD participated and were administered the Y-BOCS and scales measuring depression (Hamilton Depression Rating Scale) and anxiety (Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale). It was found that the Y-BOCS forms two different two-factor models. One model consisted of an obsessions and compulsions factor; the other composed of disturbance and symptom severity factors. It was likewise found that depression and anxiety were related to both factors in one model (disturbance and symptom severity). The finding that depression was related to obsessions and anxiety to compulsions was found, as in a previous factor analysis of the Y-BOCS. These findings suggest that OCD may be best characterized as a multidimensional syndrome that may not be adequately examined by a single unitary factor as described in the Y-BOCS.     

Issues surrounding the cognitive neuroscience of obsessive-compulsive disorder

Obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) has been studied extensively in recent years, with increased emphasis on understanding OCD’s biological substrates. There has been significant progress in documenting abnormal brain function in OCD patients, particularly in the orbitofrontal cortex, basal ganglia, and thalamus. Similar progress has broadened our understanding of the cognitive and behavioral manifestations of the disorder, including deficits in set shifting, hyperattention, and visuospatial construction abilities. Unfortunately, these results have not been replicated consistently. This report comprises a review of previous attempts to characterize the neurobiology and neuropsychology of OCD, and a discussion of several factors in OCD research that can help to explain previous inconsistencies.