Consistent and Variable Practice Conditions: Effects on Relative and Absolute Timing

The authors conducted the present experiments to resolve the discrepancy between studies in which relative-timing learning has been found to be enhanced by consistent practice conditions and contextual interference experiments in which relative-timing learning has been found to be enhanced more by random practice than by blocked practice. There were 40 participants in Experiment 1 and 48 in Experiment 2. The results of Experiment 1 extended previous findings: The learning of the relative-timing pattern was systematically enhanced by the degree to which the practice conditions promoted movement consistency (constant > blocked > serial > random). Experiment 2 provided evidence that the discrepancy between the relative-timing effects in the 2 groups of studies was a product of the way in which relative-timing goals and feedback were presented. When the feedback was presented as segment times, random practice resulted in generally more stable relative-timing patterns during acquisition than blocked practice did. Thus, in both experiments, the learning of the relative-timing pattern was enhanced by more stable relative-timing conditions during acquisition. Absolute-timing learning, as indexed by the transfer tests, was enhanced by serial or random practice as compared with constant or blocked practice, and was relatively unaffected by feedback conditions directed at the relative-timing pattern. In terms of motor programming theory, those findings are taken as additional evidence for the disassociation of memories supporting generalized motor program (GMP) performance, as indexed by relative timing, and parameter performance, as indexed by absolute timing.     

Turning Men into Machines? Scientific Management,Industrial Psychology,and the “Human Factor”

In the controversy that broke out in 1911 over Frederick W. Taylor's scientific management, many critics contended that it ignored “the human factor” and reduced workers to machines. Psychologists succeeded in positioning themselves as experts of the human factor, and their instruments and expertise as the necessary complement of Taylor's psychologically deficient system. However, the conventional view that the increasing influence of psychologists and other social scientists “humanized” management theory and practice needs to be amended. Taylor's scientific management was not less human than later approaches such as Human Relations, but it articulated the human factor differently, and aligned it to its own instruments and practices in such a way that it was at once external to them and essential to their functioning. Industrial psychologists, on the other hand, at first presented themselves as engineers of the human factor and made the human mind an integral part of management.     

How Experts Solve a Novel Problem in Experimental Design

Research on expert-novice differences has mainly focused on how experts solve familiar problems. We know far less about the skills and knowledge used by experts when they are confronted with novel problems within their area of expertise. This article discusses a study in which verbal protocols were taken from subjects of various expertise designing an experiment in an area with which they were unfamiliar. The results showed that even when domain knowledge is lacking, experts solve a novel problem within their area of expertise by dividing the problem into a number of subproblems that are solved in a specified order. The lack of domain knowledge is compensated for by using abstract knowledge structures and domain-specific heuristic strategies. However, the quality of their solutions is considerably lower than the quality attained by experts who were familiar with the type of problem to be solved. The results suggest that when experts are confronted with novel problems as compared with familiar problems, their form of reasoning remains intact, but the content of their reasoning suffers due to lack of domain knowledge.     

The effect of perceptual load on attention-induced motion blindness: the efficiency of selective inhibition

Recent visual marking studies have shown that the carry-over of distractor inhibition can impair the ability of singletons to capture attention if the singleton and distractors share features. The current study extends this finding to first-order motion targets and distractors, clearly separated in time by a visual cue (the letter X). Target motion discrimination was significantly impaired, a result attributed to the carry-over of distractor inhibition. Increasing the difficulty of cue detection increased the motion target impairment, as distractor inhibition is thought to increase under demanding (high load) conditions in order to maximize selection efficiency. The apparent conflict with studies reporting reduced distractor inhibition under high load conditions was resolved by distinguishing between the effects of "cognitive" and "perceptual" load.