Coping behavior in depression: report on a new scale

The Coping Strategies Scales (COSTS) were developed to provide a means of measuring how depressed persons cope with depression and to identify the behavior which they find to be most or least helpful. Items were rated by eight psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers. Those items achieving 75% level of agreement on scale assignments were included. The COSTS was then administered to 100 depressed outpatients and inpatients currently in psychotherapy. A replication study of 64 patients was also completed. Nine of the 10 scales had acceptable internal reliability, ranging from 0.70 to 0.86. An initial factor analysis of the 10 scale scores showed there to be three primary factors. Internal reliability coefficients for these three factorially-derived scales ranged from 0.86 to 0.91.     

Effects of simulated stuttering on listener recall

In an investigation of the effects of simulated stuttering on listener recall, a presentation was varied on two factors: degree of stuttering (mild or severe) and information value of stuttered words (low or high). A control presentation featuring non-stuttered speech also was prepared. Five groups of 16 subjects were randomly assigned to, and participated in, one of the five listening conditions. Then they completed a 20-item recall test. A one-way analysis of variance revealed sognificant differences among the five conditions. Two-way analysis of variance disclosed no main effects. However, a significant interaction showed that recall was lowest in the severe stuttering-high information condition. The results are discussed in terms of attention to critical information.     

Comprehension of directly and indirectly stated main ideas and details in discourse by brain-damaged and non-brain-damaged listeners

Aphasic, right-hemisphere-damaged, and non-brain-damaged subjects heard short narrative paragraphs. Each paragraph contained four main ideas and one or more details related to each main idea. After each paragraph was presented, subjects' comprehension and retention of main ideas and details from the paragraph were tested. Some of the test items directly restated information from paragraphs and others paraphrased information from paragraphs. All groups of subjects remembered main ideas better than they remembered details, and no group of subjects was significantly affected by whether test items directly or indirectly stated information from paragraphs. Disfluent aphasic and right-hemisphere-damaged subjects' overall paragraphs comprehension scores were not significantly poorer than those of non-brain-damaged subjects. Fluent and mixed aphasic subjects' overall paragraph comprehension scores were significantly worse than those of non-brain-damaged and right-hemisphere-damaged subjects. Token Test and Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination auditory comprehension scores did not predict aphasic subjects' paragraph comprehension scores. right-hemisphere-damaged subjects' overall paragraph comprehension scores were not significantly those of non-brain-damaged and right-hemisphere-damaged subjects. Token Test and Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination auditory comprehension scores did not predict aphasic subjects' paragraph comprehension scores.     

Comprehension of main ideas and details in coherent and noncoherent discourse by aphasic and nonaphasic listeners

Aphasic and nonaphasic listeners' comprehension of main ideas and details within coherent and noncoherent narrative discourse was examined. Coherent paragraphs contained one topic to which all sentences in the paragraph related. Noncoherent paragraphs contained a change in topic with every third or fourth sentence. Each paragraph contained four main ideas and one or more details that related to each main idea. Listeners' responses to yes/no questions following each paragraph yielded the following results: (1) Nonaphasic listeners comprehended the paragraphs better than aphasic listeners. (2) Both aphasic and nonaphasic listeners comprehended main ideas better than they comprehended details. (3) Coherence did not affect comprehension of main ideas for either group. (4) Coherence did not affect comprehension of details by nonaphasic subjects. (5) Coherence affected comprehension of details by aphasic subjects, and their comprehension of details in coherent paragraphs was worse than their comprehension of details in noncoherent paragraphs. There was no significant correlation between Token Test scores and measures of paragraph comprehension.     

Possible effects of forced report order on tachistoscopic recognition of bilaterally presented stimuli: A response to Young and Ellis

Comparing visual field asymmetries for bilaterally presented words and corresponding line drawings, we found an RVF advantage for words and no visual field asymmetry for line drawings. We suggested that the RVF advantage previously obtained by Young, Bion, and Ellis (Brain and Language, 11, 54–65, 1980) for bilaterally presented line drawings may have resulted from a forced order of report procedure, noting that the RVF advantage was greater on trials on which subjects were forced to report in the nonpreferred right-to-left order. Young and Ellis (Brain and Language, 20, 166–171, 1983) attempt to discredit this claim and maintain their hypothesis that the RVF advantage for line drawings is attributable to better temporary storage of these stimuli by the left than the right hemisphere. In the present article, we present in greater detail our arguments for the effects of forced order of report on the perception of bilaterally presented stimuli and refute Young and Ellis's ibid. criticisms of this proposal.     

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.     

Individual differences in loudness processing and loudness scales

Parameters of the psychophysical function for loudness (a 1000-Hz tone) were assessed for individual subjects in three experiments: (a) binaural loudness summation, (b) temporal loudness summation, and (c) judgments of loudness intervals. The loudness scales that underlay the additive binaural summation closely approximated S. S. Stevens's (1956) sone scale but were nonlinearly related to the scales that underlay the subtractive interval judgments, the latter approximating Garner's (1954) lambda scale. Interindividual differences in temporal summation were unrelated to differences in scaling performance or in binaural summation. Although the exponents of magnitude-estimation functions and the exponents underlying interval judgments varied considerably from subject to subject, exponents computed on the basis of underlying binaural summation varied less. The results suggest that interindividual variation in the exponent of magnitude-estimation functions largely reflects differences in the ways that subjects use numbers to describe loudnesses and that the sensory representations of loudness are fairly uniform, though probably not wholly uniform, among people with normal hearing. The magnitude of individual variation in at least one measure of auditory intensity processing, namely, temporal summation, seems at least as great as the magnitude of the variation in the underlying loudness scale.