Generation of bimanual trajectories of disparate eccentricity: levels of interference and spontaneous changes over practice

The authors examined intermanual interactions of 2 hands that were required to concurrently follow trajectories that differed in eccentricity. Ten healthy participants attempted to learn to trace 2 figures, a circle and an ellipse, with bilaterally isochronous (1:1) timing demands. Initial unimanual trials were followed by bilateral practice comprising 750 movement cycles. Two objectives were addressed: The authors' primary aim was to determine if kinematic interlimb interference is evident independent of spatial and temporal interference and to observe the potential practice-related changes in the nature of that interference. That test was afforded by participants' natural tendency to draw a circle with a relatively constant tangential velocity and an ellipse with a systematically varying velocity. A second aim was to observe the nature of spontaneous changes in the performance of each individual effector, and in the relationship between effectors, across practice. Those objectives were specifically addressed in a context in which augmented feedback was not available to direct the learners' attention to a particular feature of performance. The results suggested that interlimb assimilation of spatial features is the primary source of interference for that task and that apparent effects at the kinematic level are the secondary, indirect product of spatial coupling. Those results were found across blocks of practice. With respect to nondirected performance changes, substantially less improvement was evident in the performance of each individual effector than in the reduction of interlimb interference. Specifically, no practice-related changes in temporal variability or velocity bias, and minimal changes in trajectory smoothness, were evident in individual limbs. Conversely, significant reductions were observed in the variability of relative phase between limbs and in the magnitude of interlimb phase lag.     

How does background information improve memory for text content?

In two experiments, we investigated whether reading background information benefits memory for text content by influencing the amount of content encoded or the organization of the encoded content. In Experiment 1, half of the participants read background information about the issues to be discussed in the text material, whereas half did not. All the participants were then tested for free recall and cued recall of text content. Free recall was greater for individuals who read issue information than for those who did not. The groups did not differ on cued recall, suggesting that background information did not facilitate the encoding of more text content. Measures of representational organization indicated that increased recall in the issue information group resulted from better organization of content in memory. Experiment 2 extended these findings, using background information about text sources, demonstrated that the efficacy of background information depends on the semantic relationship between that information and text content.     

Action-based and vision-based selection of input: Two sources of control

In the first part of this paper we review evidence suggesting that there exists a mechanism that selects input on the basis of its similarity to the required action. This response-based input selection differs from the more established space- and object-based input selection in that it is not constrained by the structure of the input. Our evidence suggests that the two-choice Stroop effect is caused by this response-based selection mechanism. By contrast, it is known that the flanker effect is determined by the space- and object- based selection mechanisms. We explore whether the conflict resolution of the Stroop and flanker tasks is different as well by embedding these two tasks in a PRP (Psychological Refractory Period) paradigm. We show that the Stroop and the PRP effects are additive whereas the flanker and the PRP effects are underadditive, suggesting that the processes in charge of the conflict resolution in the Stroop and the flanker tasks are indeed different. We discuss possible reasons for this difference, and discuss possible ways in which the response-based mechanism can be implemented in information processing models.