Twelve sleep-deprived and 13 non-deprived Navy cadets were tested with the dichotic listening procedure for effects of sleep deprivation on hemispheric asymmetry and sustained attention. Consonant-vowel syllables were presented to the subjects in three different conditions, a divided (non-forced) attention condition, a forced right ear and a forced left ear attention condition. In the two forced attention conditions the subjects were instructed to focus attention only on the right or left ear stimulus. The results showed an expected right ear advantage for both groups during the non-forced and forced right attention conditions, indicating superior left hemisphere processing. During the forced left attention condition, the sleep-deprived subjects showed no ear advantage at all, while the non-deprived subjects showed an expected left ear advantage. The results are discussed within a theoretical framework of a dual process model, where sleep deprivation disrupts the ability to sustain attention, caused by a temporary failure of the right hemisphere's top-down (instruction-driven) processing to override the left hemisphere's bottom-up (stimulus-driven) processing. 相似文献
My view is that the relevant alternative position should be conceived of as in two parts:
(1)
With respect to many propositions, to establish a knowledge claim is to be able to support it as opposed to a limited number of alternatives — i.e., only those which are relevant in the context.
(2)
With respect to many propositions — in particular those which are such that their negations are not relevant alternatives in the context in question — we simply know them to be true and do not need evidence, in the normal sense, that they, rather than their negations, are true. So conceived, the relevant alternative view neither supports the abandonment of deductive closure, nor is such abandonment in any way needed to provide the relevant alternative view with an answer to the skeptic, insofar as he can be answered.
The authors conducted a dual-task study to examine age differences in speech processing under varying loads. Younger and older adults listened to and immediately recalled spoken passages presented at various speech rates (140-280 words per min). This task was performed alone as well as in a divided-attention condition in which subjects concurrently performed a picture recognition task. Consistent with the slowing hypothesis, older adults' immediate memory performance was differentially depressed when speech rates were very fast. The Age x Speech Rate interaction, however, was not exacerbated in the divided-attention condition. This suggests that aging may reduce the rate at which the processing operations underlying memory for speech are completed, but this is conceptually distinct from an age-related reduction in attentional capacity. 相似文献
Adult age differences in processing speech were examined with a dual-task paradigm. Subjects listened to spoken passages for later recall while performing a concurrent reaction time task intended to index cognitive capacity usage on the speech memory task. Age differences in secondary task decision latencies were eliminated when subgroups of young and older subjects were matched on working memory span. These findings are interpreted as showing that an age-related reduction in working memory efficiency contributes to age differences in processing discourse for memory. 相似文献
Children with disinhibited social engagement disorder show reduced reticence with strangers, do not check back with their caregiver after venturing away, and may willingly leave with an unfamiliar adult. The recent DSM-5 has moved away from an attachment framework to understand disinhibited social engagement behavior (DSEB) due to studies indicating its presence in previously institutionalized children even after these children are adopted and show a selective, more secure attachment with their substitute caregiver (e.g. Chisholm et al., 1998). This meta-analysis aims to clarify the size of the associations between DSEB and attachment insecurity or disorganization. It also examines whether studies effect sizes differ according to various moderators (e.g., child age, type of attachment and DSEB measures). The results (k?=?24) showed that the associations between DSEB and attachment insecurity (d?=?0.48) or attachment disorganization (d?=?0.47) were of small magnitude. There were no publication biases. As for moderator analyses on both attachment insecurity and disorganization, the effect sizes in studies using DSEB observational measures (respectively d?=?0.63 and 0.57) were of moderate magnitude and stronger than those in studies not using an observational component (respectively d?=?0.28 and 0.32). Given these small-to-moderate associations, attachment can be considered a relationship process associated with DSEB, and attachment-informed interventions could be potential tools to reduce DSEB in children. Nevertheless, given the sizable unshared portion of variance between DSEB and child attachment, future studies should examine other variables related to caregiving and noncaregiving contexts to further understand DSEB.
