Adding pieces to the puzzle: a commentary

In Jensen's theme paper she did an excellent job of outlining and explaining ways in which motor developmentalists can use the tools of biomechanics and engineering to address research questions. We extend her thorough efforts in two ways. First, we highlight the communication value provided by the precision of biomechanics terminology, and second, we reinforce the need to embed motion (the kinematics and kinetics) in context and function in order to understand the complexity of behaviour. We illustrate how one biomechanical tool, mechanical models, can facilitate this and provide insight to the development of control. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Impaired temporal discrimination within the attentional blink

Yeshurun and Levy (2003) reported that temporal discrimination performance of a visual stimulus benefits when spatial attention is oriented away from its location. In the present study, we investigated whether this negative influence of attention on temporal discrimination performance is restricted to transient spatial attention or might generalize to other paradigms of attention. We employed the attentional blink (AB) paradigm and required either a spatial (Experiment 1) or a temporal discrimination task (Experiment 2). The results of both experiments revealed a performance decrement if attention was temporally unavailable during the AB and a recovery with increasing attentional availability. Thus, contrary to the results of Yeshurun and Levy, the absence of attention decreased temporal discrimination performance in this paradigm. We hypothesize that attention which operates at different processing levels might exert differential effects on temporal stimulus processing.     

Die Werturteilsfrage in der Technik

Journal for General Philosophy of Science - Bei den von Ingenieuren verwendeten Dezisionsmechanismen wird aufgrund der Fortentwicklung der Technik die methodologische Sicherung der...     

Punishment of temporally spaced responding

The responses of pigeons were maintained by a DRL schedule of food reinforcement. With this schedule, responses were reinforced only when a fixed period of time elapsed without an intervening response. Punishment of all responses reduced the frequency of these responses as a direct function of the punishment intensity. As a consequence of the increased temporal spacing of responses, more reinforcements resulted during punishment. Under progressively higher intensities of punishment, the reinforcement frequency increased to a maximum value and then decreased at the highest intensities. The increased frequency of reinforcement which resulted during punishment did not counteract the suppressive effect of punishment, nor did it lead to a low response rate after punishment was removed. Punishment did not reduce the inter-response time distribution uniformly, but rather especially reduced the number of short inter-response times. Even at the low punishment intensities, the number of short inter-response times was considerably reduced. After punishment was discontinued, performance recovered almost completely after a compensatory burst. The number as well as the temporal pattern of responses returned to normal.     

The surface-weight illusion: on the contribution of grip force to perceived heaviness

Previous psychophysical studies have shown that an object, lifted with a precision grip, is perceived as being heavier when its surface is smooth than when it is rough. Three experiments were conducted to assess whether this surface-weight illusion increases with object weight, as a simple fusion model suggests. Experiment 1 verified that grip force increases more steeply with object weight for smooth objects than for rough ones. In Experiment 2, subjects rated the weight of smooth and rough objects. Smooth objects were judged to be heavier than rough ones; however, this effect did not increase with object weight. Experiment 3 employed a different psychophysical method and replicated this additive effect, which argues strongly against the simple fusion model. The whole pattern of results is consistent with a weighted fusion model in which the sensation of grip force contributes only partially to the perceived heaviness of a lifted object.     

Is it possible to prepare the second component of a movement before the first one?

Experiment 1 utilized a choice reaction time paradigm to examine whether advance information about the second component of a movement has similar effects upon movement initiation and execution as advance information about the first component. Four stimuli were assigned to four goal keys. Subjects responded with the index finger of their preferred hand. They had to press on of two intermediate keys before pressing the assigned stimulus goal key. Advance information signaled one pair of goal keys in such a way that either the first or the second movement component was unequivocally specified before the response signal appeared. Shorter reaction times resulted when the first component was precued. Further control conditions showed that advance information about the second movement component could not be utilized for movement preparation. Experiment 2 ruled out a perceptual interpretation of this effect. Experiment 3 showed that preparation time for two-component movements are longer than for one-component movements. The study permits the conclusions that speeded two-component movements are controlled by motor programs and that advance information about the first movement component is required before the second movement component can be programmed.     

Stimulus-response compatibility in intensity-force relations.

Romaiguère, Hasbroucq, Possama?, and Seal (1993) reported a new compatibility effect from a task that required responses of two different target force levels to stimuli of two different intensities. Reaction times were shorter when high and low stimulus intensities were mapped to strong and weak force presses respectively than when this mapping was reversed. We conducted six experiments to refine the interpretation of this effect. Experiments 1 to 4 demonstrated that the compatibility effect is clearly larger for auditory than for visual stimuli. Experiments 5 and 6 generalized this finding to a task where stimulus intensity was irrelevant. This modality difference refines Romaiguère et al.'s (1993) symbolic coding interpretation by showing that modality-specific codes underlie the intensity-force compatibility effect. Possible accounts in terms of differences in the representational mode and action effects are discussed.