Cradling side preference is associated with lateralized processing of baby facial expressions in females

Women’s cradling side preference has been related to contralateral hemispheric specialization of processing emotional signals; but not of processing baby’s facial expression. Therefore, 46 nulliparous female volunteers were characterized as left or non-left holders (HG) during a doll holding task. During a signal detection task they were then asked to detect the emotional baby faces in a series of baby portraits with neutral and emotional facial expressions, presented either to the left or the right visual field (VFP). ANOVA revealed a significant HG × VFP interaction on response bias data (p < .05). Response bias was lowest when emotional baby faces were presented in the visual field of cradling side preference, suggesting that women’s cradling side preference may have evolved to save cognitive resources during monitoring emotional baby face signals.     

Signal Detection Models with Random Participant and Item Effects

The theory of signal detection is convenient for measuring mnemonic ability in recognition memory paradigms. In these paradigms, randomly selected participants are asked to study randomly selected items. In practice, researchers aggregate data across items or participants or both. The signal detection model is nonlinear; consequently, analysis with aggregated data is not consistent. In fact, mnemonic ability is underestimated, even in the large-sample limit. We present two hierarchical Bayesian models that simultaneously account for participant and item variability. We show how these models provide for accurate estimation of participants’ mnemonic ability as well as the memorability of items. The model is benchmarked with a simulation study and applied to a novel data set. This research is supported by NSF grants SES-0095919 and SES-0351523, NIH grant R01-MH071418, a University of Missouri Research Leave grant and fellowships from the Spanish Ministry of Education and the University of Leuven, Belgium.     

Invisible Stimuli,Implicit Thresholds: Why Invisibility Judgments Cannot be Interpreted in Isolation

Some studies of unconscious cognition rely on judgments of participants stating that they have “not seen” the critical stimulus (e.g., in a masked-priming experiment). Trials in which participants gave invisibility judgments are then treated as those where the critical stimulus was “subliminal” or “unconscious,” as opposed to trials with higher visibility ratings. Sometimes, only these trials are further analyzed, for instance, for unconscious priming effects. Here I argue that this practice requires implicit assumptions about subjective measures of awareness incompatible with basic models of categorization under uncertainty (e.g., modern signal-detection and threshold theories). Most importantly, it ignores the potential effects of response bias. Instead of taking invisibility judgments literally, they would better be employed in parametric experiments where stimulus visibility is manipulated systematically, not accidentally. This would allow studying qualitative and double dissociations between measures of awareness and of stimulus processing per se.     

Looks like a liar? Beliefs about native and non-native speakers' deception

We examined whether observers' beliefs about deception were affected by a speaker's language proficiency. Laypersons (N = 105) and police officers (N = 75) indicated which nonverbal and verbal behaviors were predictive of native versus non-native speakers' deception. In addition, they provided their beliefs about these speakers' interrogation experiences. Participants believed that native and non-native speakers would exhibit the same cues to deception. However, they did predict that non-native speakers would likely face several challenges during interrogations (e.g., longer interrogations and difficulties understanding the interrogator's questions). Police officers and laypersons also differed in their beliefs about cues to deception and interrogation experiences.     

Tactile detection response task: Metrics for assessing drivers’ cognitive workload

The Tactile Detection Response Task (TDRT) has been used to assess the cognitive workload of driver distraction with response time and miss rate as metrics of cognitive workload. However, it is not clear which metric is more sensitive and whether sensitivity is maintained for visual tasks. The objective of this study was to assess the sensitivity of the TDRT to changes in cognitive workload and to examine whether the sensitivity depends on task modality. A driving simulator study was conducted with 24 participants. The study included restaurant selection tasks with three presentation modalities (auditory, visual, and hybrid) and two difficulty levels (low and high). The high difficulty level was designed to be more cognitively demanding than the low difficulty level. Mixed-effects models were applied to examine the TDRT metrics and task difficulty level. The model controlled for age group, gender, and included a random effect for participants. The high difficulty level of the auditory tasks significantly increased the likelihood of missing a TDRT stimulus. No statistically significant differences were observed for visual and hybrid tasks. TDRT response time was not significantly associated with the difficulty level, regardless of task modality. In this study, the binary outcome TDRT miss was thus considered a more sensitive metric of cognitive workload than TDRT response time. TDRT response time can still be used to measure cognitive workload when tasks are relatively easy and the TDRT miss rate is close to zero. In addition, the sensitivity of the TDRT miss diminished for tasks that involved a visual component. Researchers who use TDRT to measure the cognitive workload associated with visual tasks should be aware of this limitation.