Secobarbital and perceptual processing

An experiment which employed each of 18 subjects in four days of testing was used to examine acute secobarbital dose treatment effects on choice reaction time in a Cooper and Shepard (1973) character recognition task. Manipulations of visual stimulus degradation, character difficulty, 180 degree rotation, and mirror-image reversal were included in order to evaluate the hypothesis that the drug affects performance by disrupting early stimulus input processing. The results indicate significant increases in the effect of secobarbital on reaction time and errors under conditions of visual stimulus degradation. The effects of the drug, however, were not changed by 180 degree rotation of the target character or by the other task variables. The results were interpreted to indicate that secobarbital impairs performance primarily by placing selective stress on hypothetical early encoding activities and that later processing operations (associated with use of an internal representation of the target character) are not affected by the drug. Strengths and weaknesses of the two-stage model of visual stimulus processing are discussed and implications of the model for future drug research are indicated.     

Awareness of the response after feedback training for changes in heart rate and sudomotor laterality

What is the relation between the ability to control visceral responding on a biofeedback task and the ability to report behaviors actually contributing to this performance? Subjects received biofeedback training for unidentified visceral responses and then gave written reports about what they had done to control the feedback displays. Independent judges were given these reports and, on the basis of knowledge about activities known to contribute to visceral activity, were asked to determine the visceral responses for which the subjects had been trained. The reports of subjects who succeeded at bidirectional control of heart rate (Experiment 1) or sudomotor laterality (Experiment 2) showed awareness of behaviors related to feedback as assessed by this procedure, whereas the reports of subjects who failed at bidirectional control did not. Subsequent experiments indicated that these results did not depend on a learning strategy that might have been specific to the initial studies. These findings call into question the view that people are unaware of what they have done to produce the response after training on biofeedback tasks. Earlier studies reporting lack of awareness in biofeedback are discussed in light of factors that affect the measurement of biofeedback learning and response awareness.     

Delayed reinforcement as an indiscriminable contingency in verbal/nonverbal correspondence training

We investigated the programming of generalization and maintenance of correspondence between verbal and nonverbal behavior in a preschool setting. Four children participated in a series of multiple-baseline designs. In Experiment 1, delayed reinforcement of verbal behavior effectively controlled maintenance of correspondence with previously trained responses and also resulted in generalization of correspondence to one untrained response. As the latter effect was limited, Experiment 2 was a further assessment of the effects of delayed reinforcement of generalization of correspondence to untrained responses, and consistent generalization was shown. Experiment 2 also showed that generalization, if lost, could be recovered through use of "booster training," in which the original contingencies were reinstated for a brief period. Experiment 3 provided replications, with two additional children, of the effects of delayed reinforcement on maintenance of correspondence. Results are discussed in terms of using delayed reinforcement as an indiscriminable contingency.     

Radical parochialism about reference

We can use radically different reference-schemes to generate the same truth-conditions for the sentences of a language. In this paper, we do three things. (1) Distinguish two arguments that deploy this observation to derive different conclusions. The first argues that reference is radically indeterminate: there is no fact of the matter what ordinary terms refer to. This threat is taken seriously and most contemporary metasemantic theories come with resources intended to rebut it. The second argues for radical parochialism about reference: it's a reflection of our parochial interests, rather than the nature of the subject matter, that our theorizing about language appeals to reference rather than another relation that generates the same truth-conditions. Rebuttals of the first argument cut no ice against the second, because radical parochialism is compatible with reference being determinate. (2) Argue that radical parochialism, like radical indeterminacy, would be shocking if true. (3) Argue that the case for radical parochialism turns on the explanatory purposes of “reference”-talk: on relatively “thin” conceptions, the argument goes through, and radical parochialism is (shockingly!) true; on richer conceptions, the argument can be blocked. We conclude that non-revisionists must endorse, and justify, a relatively rich conception of the explanatory purposes of “reference”-talk.     

Does code-switching influence novel word learning?

Code-switching occurs regularly in the input to bilingual children. Yet, the effect of code-switched input on language development is unclear. To test whether word learning would be affected by code-switching, Spanish–English bilingual children (N = 45, 19 boys, Mean_Age = 5.05 years; ethnicity: 37 Hispanic/Latino, six Non-Hispanic/Latino, two unreported) were taught English-like novel words in two conditions. In the English-only condition, definitions for novel words were provided entirely in English. In the code-switch condition, definitions for novel words were provided in English and Spanish, incorporating code-switches. Children required fewer exposures to retain novel words in the code-switch than the English-only condition and this effect was not moderated by children's language ability or exposure to code-switching, suggesting that code-switched input does not pose word-learning risks to bilingual children, including children with lower levels of language ability.     

Susceptibility to prosocial and antisocial influence in adolescence following mindfulness training

Mindfulness training programmes have shown to encourage prosocial behaviours and reduce antisocial tendencies in adolescents. However, less is known about whether training affects susceptibility to prosocial and antisocial influence. The current study investigated the effect of mindfulness training (compared with an active control) on self-reported prosocial and antisocial tendencies and susceptibility to prosocial and antisocial influence. 465 adolescents aged 11–16 years were randomly allocated to one of two training programmes. Pre- and post-training, participants completed a social influence task. Self-reported likelihood of engaging in prosocial and antisocial behaviours did not change post-training, and regardless of training group, participants showed a higher propensity for prosocial influence than for antisocial influence. Finally, participants were less influenced by antisocial ratings following both training programmes.     

Heterogeneous heterogeneity by default: Testing categorical moderators in mixed-effects meta-analysis

Categorical moderators are often included in mixed-effects meta-analysis to explain heterogeneity in effect sizes. An assumption in tests of categorical moderator effects is that of a constant between-study variance across all levels of the moderator. Although it rarely receives serious thought, there can be statistical ramifications to upholding this assumption. We propose that researchers should instead default to assuming unequal between-study variances when analysing categorical moderators. To achieve this, we suggest using a mixed-effects location-scale model (MELSM) to allow group-specific estimates for the between-study variance. In two extensive simulation studies, we show that in terms of Type I error and statistical power, little is lost by using the MELSM for moderator tests, but there can be serious costs when an equal variance mixed-effects model (MEM) is used. Most notably, in scenarios with balanced sample sizes or equal between-study variance, the Type I error and power rates are nearly identical between the MEM and the MELSM. On the other hand, with imbalanced sample sizes and unequal variances, the Type I error rate under the MEM can be grossly inflated or overly conservative, whereas the MELSM does comparatively well in controlling the Type I error across the majority of cases. A notable exception where the MELSM did not clearly outperform the MEM was in the case of few studies (e.g., 5). With respect to power, the MELSM had similar or higher power than the MEM in conditions where the latter produced non-inflated Type 1 error rates. Together, our results support the idea that assuming unequal between-study variances is preferred as a default strategy when testing categorical moderators.     

Safety behaviors were associated with greater anxious symptoms during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic

Research shows that people who use safety behaviors are at greater risk factor for anxiety than people who do not use safety behaviors. However, the perception of some safety behaviors changed during the COVID-19 pandemic; behaviors that were once considered unnecessary or excessive were now commonplace (e.g., monitoring bodily symptoms, avoiding crowds). The purpose of this study was to determine the degree to which the pandemic changed the status of health-related safety behaviors as a risk factor for symptoms of anxiety. To this end, we tested the effect of safety behavior use on anxious symptoms during the first year of the pandemic using a longitudinal design with 8 time points and participants (n = 233) from over 20 countries. Despite possible changes in their perception, those engaging in high levels of safety behaviors reported the greatest levels of anxious symptoms throughout the pandemic year. However, the outcomes for safety behavior users were not all negative. Safety behavior use at baseline was the only predictor of participants' willingness to receive the COVID-19 vaccine (measured one year later).