Semantic interference from visual object recognition on visual imagery

A new technique for examining the interaction between visual object recognition and visual imagery is reported. The "image-picture interference" paradigm requires participants to generate and make a response to a mental image of a previously memorized object, while ignoring a simultaneously presented picture distractor. Responses in 2 imagery tasks (making left-right higher spatial judgments and making taller-wider judgments) were longer when the simultaneous picture distractor was categorically related to the target distractor relative to unrelated and neutral target-distractor combinations. In contrast, performance was not influenced in this way when the distractor was a related word, when a semantic categorization decision was made to the target, or when distractor and target were visually but not categorically related to one another. The authors discuss these findings in terms of the semantic representations shared by visual object recognition and visual imagery that mediate performance.     

Looking for the source of the simon effect: evidence of multiple codes

The Simon effect (SE) usually is described as the performance advantage that results when a target and its associated response share the same spatial code, as opposed to when they do not, even when the target's spatial code is task-irrelevant. To some, this task-irrelevant code represents the location of the target with respect to the participant (Simon & Craft, 1970), whereas to others (Umiltà & Nicoletti, 1992) it represents the location of the target with respect to the locus of attention. By using a spatial cuing procedure, we simultaneously tested both of these hypotheses and found evidence that both types of codes produce independent SEs, therefore providing evidence that multiple spatial codes can simultaneously influence performance in a Simon task.     

No pain no gain: The positive impact of punishment on the strategic regulation of accuracy

Previous studies have shown that punishing people through a large penalty for volunteering incorrect information typically leads them to withhold more information (metacognitive response bias), but it does not appear to influence their ability to distinguish between their own correct and incorrect answers (metacognitive accuracy discrimination). The goal of the current study was to demonstrate that punishing people for volunteering incorrect information—versus rewarding volunteering correct information—produces more effective metacognitive accuracy discrimination. All participants completed three different general-knowledge tests: a reward test (high points for correct volunteered answers), a baseline test (equal points/penalties for volunteered correct/incorrect answers) and a punishment test (high penalty for incorrect volunteered answers). Participants were significantly better at distinguishing between their own correct and incorrect answers on the punishment than reward test, which has implications for situations requiring effective accuracy monitoring.     

Allowing for correlations between correlations in random-effects meta-analysis of correlation matrices

Practical meta-analysis of correlation matrices generally ignores covariances (and hence correlations) between correlation estimates. The authors consider various methods for allowing for covariances, including generalized least squares, maximum marginal likelihood, and Bayesian approaches, illustrated using a 6-dimensional response in a series of psychological studies concerning prediction of exercise behavior change. Quantities of interest include the overall population mean correlation matrix, the contrast between the mean correlations, the predicted correlation matrix in a new study, and the conflict between the existing studies and a new correlation matrix. The authors conclude that accounting for correlations between correlations is unnecessary when interested in individual correlations but potentially important if concerned with a composite measure involving 2 or more correlations. A simulation study indicates the asymptotic normal assumption appears reasonable. Because of potential instability in the generalized least squares methods, they recommend a model-based approach, either the maximum marginal likelihood approach or a full Bayesian analysis.     

Perceptions of absolute versus relative differences between personal and comparison health risk.

OBJECTIVE: To explain inconsistent results in previous attempts to determine whether, when presented with health risk information, people focus primarily on information about their own risk status or on a comparison with others. DESIGN: A randomized between-groups experiment in which participants were presented with hypothetical cardiac risk information. We examined whether affective responses were primarily sensitive to the relative difference between personal and comparison risk, rather than the absolute difference. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participants' negative affective response to the risk information. RESULTS: When relative differences were held constant, participants' responses were independently influenced by both personal risk and comparative standing, effects that were greatly attenuated when absolute differences were held constant. When maintaining constant absolute differences, personal and comparison risk information appeared to interact. CONCLUSION: Previous studies tended to maintain constant absolute risk differences and so may have underestimated the impact of personal risk information. Participants' responses were sensitive to the way the risk difference was constructed. Basing experimental design decisions on assumptions about the information participants will respond to can lead to misinterpretations of the basis of risk judgments.