Response preparation with static versus moving hands

This research tested the response inhibition account of the hand-advantage found in the finger pre-cuing task. According to this account, the advantage of preparing two fingers on one hand (represented in one hemisphere) as opposed to preparing two fingers on two hands (represented in two hemispheres) is due, in part, to a response inhibition process that operates more efficiently within than between hemispheres. In this view, supplying extra activation to both hemispheres by moving the hands should decrease the within-hemisphere inhibition advantage. Twelve participants performed the finger pre-cuing task with static and moving hands. As predicted by the response inhibition account, the hand-advantage, present with the hands at rest, decreased with the hands moving.     

Does sensitivity in binary choice tasks depend on response modality?

In most models of vision, a stimulus is processed in a series of dedicated visual areas, leading to categorization of this stimulus, and possible decision, which subsequently may be mapped onto a motor-response. In these models, stimulus processing is thought to be independent of the response modality. However, in theories of event coding, common coding, and sensorimotor contingency, stimuli may be very specifically mapped onto certain motor-responses. Here, we compared performance in a shape localization task and used three different response modalities: manual, saccadic, and verbal. Meta-contrast masking was employed at various inter-stimulus intervals (ISI) to manipulate target visibility. Although we found major differences in reaction times for the three response modalities, accuracy remained at the same level for each response modality (and all ISIs). Our results support the view that stimulus-response (S-R) associations exist only for specific instances, such as reflexes or skills, but not for arbitrary S-R pairings.     

Cue type affects preparatory influences on task inhibition

The present study investigates the influence of preparation on inhibitory effects in cued task switching. In three experiments, we assessed n − 2 repetition costs as marker of inhibition of the just executed and now irrelevant task by comparing performance in task sequences such as ABA (i.e., n − 2 repetitions, with A, B and C standing for different tasks) to task sequences such as CBA (i.e., n − 2 switches). Specifically, we varied the cue–target interval (CTI) to examine cue-based preparation effects. In addition, we manipulated cue type (i.e., abstract, verbal, and direct cues) across the three experiments. We obtained significant reductions of n − 2 repetition costs with prolonged CTI when using abstract cues (i.e., coloured frames) and task names (i.e., digit), but not when using the task-specific stimulus–response mapping as cue for the upcoming task. These data suggest that cue-based preparation is not a uniform process but depends on the information provided by the cue.     

Perceptual complexity,rather than valence or arousal accounts for distracter-induced overproductions of temporal durations

For humans and other species, the ability to estimate the physical passage of time is of fundamental importance for perceptual, cognitive or motor functions. Despite this importance, any subjective estimation of temporal durations not only depends on the temporal dynamics of the to-be-timed stimulus or event, but also can be distorted by non-temporal perceptual, cognitive, and emotional effects. This study aimed to further explore critical stimulus characteristics modulating distracter-induced distortions in human time-reproduction. To this end, we investigated whether subjectively rated distracter dimensions of arousal and valence (related to levels of emotionality), or rather stimulus complexity, as a confounder, produce distortions in participants' reproduction of a previously trained target interval. Accuracy and precision of time-reproduction have been measured in distracter-trials, and compared to timing performance in baseline-trials without any distraction. Results showed temporal overproductions in a magnitude of less than distracter duration only for complex distracters. Most importantly, arousal level and valence of distracters were not accountable for temporal distortions. Within an internal clock framework, our pattern of results can best be interpreted in the context of attention-, rather than arousal-based mechanisms of timing.     

Confidence–accuracy resolution in the misinformation paradigm is influenced by the availability of source cues

After witnessing an event, people often report having seen details that were merely suggested to them. Evidence is mixed regarding how well participants can use confidence judgments to discriminate between their correct and misled memory reports. We tested the prediction that the confidence–accuracy relationship for misled details depends upon the availability of source cues at retrieval. In Experiment 1, participants (N = 77) viewed a videotaped staged crime before reading a misleading narrative. After seven minutes or one week, the participants completed a cued recall test for the details of the original event. Prior to completing the test, all participants were warned that the narrative contained misleading details to encourage source monitoring. The results showed that the strength of the confidence–accuracy relationship declined significantly over the delay. We interpret our results in the source monitoring framework. After an extended delay, fewer diagnostic source details were available to participants, increasing reliance on retrieval fluency as a basis for memory and metamemory decisions. We tested this interpretation in a second experiment, in which participants (N = 42) completed a source monitoring test instead of a cued recall test. We observed a large effect of retention interval on source monitoring, and no significant effect on item memory. This research emphasizes the importance of securing eyewitness statements as soon as possible after an event, when witnesses are most able to discriminate between information that was personally seen and information obtained from secondary sources.     

Immediate emotion-enhanced memory dependent on arousal and valence: The role of automatic and controlled processing

The phenomenon that emotional stimuli are better remembered than neutral ones is called emotion-enhanced memory (EEM). Previous studies have shown that both valence and arousal of stimuli contributed to EEM. Kensinger and Corkin (2004) proposed that the EEM dependent on arousal was associated with automatic encoding processes, whereas the EEM dependent on valence was associated with controlled encoding processes. Their experiment with negative words provided some evidence for this associative pattern. However, it is unclear whether the observed association that occurred with negative emotional stimuli could be replicated with positive emotional stimuli. To further examine this issue, two experiments were conducted to investigate the immediate EEM of emotional words in three different attention conditions using a divided attention (DA) paradigm. Results indicated that the immediate EEM dependent on valence was associated with controlled processing, while the immediate EEM dependent on arousal was not always associated with automatic processing. The immediate EEM dependent on arousal for negative stimuli was associated with automatic processing, whereas the immediate EEM dependent on arousal for positive stimuli was associated with controlled processing. Therefore, the immediate EEM dependent on arousal, whether it is associated with automatic or controlled processing, is moderated by the valence of stimuli.     

Involvement of shared resources in time judgment and sequence reasoning tasks

Previous research suggests that time perception is supported by the same attentional resources involved in sequence processing. The present experiment was designed to clarify this connection by examining the relation between timing and reasoning tasks that involved either sequencing or non-sequencing judgments. For the timing task, subjects produced a series of 5-s intervals. For the reasoning tasks, subjects judged whether pairs of statements describing common actions either (a) were presented in the correct temporal order (sequencing), or (b) described similar actions or objects (similarity). Subjects performed the timing and reasoning tasks both separately and concurrently in a series of 3-minute trials. Comparisons of single-task and dual-task performance assessed interference patterns between concurrent tasks. Both reasoning tasks interfered with timing by making temporal productions longer and more variable. Timing had differential effects on the two reasoning tasks. Concurrent timing caused sequencing judgments to become slower, less accurate, and less sensitive relative to sequencing-only conditions. In contrast, similarity judgments were either unaffected or affected to a lesser degree by the concurrent timing task. These results support the notion that timing and sequencing are closely related processes that rely on the same set of cognitive resources or mechanisms.     

Knowledge of response location alone is not sufficient to generate social inhibition of return

Previous research has revealed that the inhibition of return (IOR) effect emerges when individuals respond to a target at the same location as their own previous response or the previous response of a co-actor. The latter social IOR effect is thought to occur because the observation of co-actor's response evokes a representation of that action in the observer and that the observation-evoked response code subsequently activates the inhibitory mechanisms underlying IOR. The present study was conducted to determine if knowledge of the co-actor's response alone is sufficient to evoke social IOR. Pairs of participants completed responses to targets that appeared at different button locations. Button contact generated location-contingent auditory stimuli (high and low tones in Experiment 1 and colour words in Experiment 2). In the Full condition, the observer saw the response and heard the auditory stimuli. In the Auditory Only condition, the observer did not see the co-actor's response, but heard the auditory stimuli generated via button contact to indicate response endpoint. It was found that, although significant individual and social IOR effects emerged in the Full conditions, there were no social IOR effects in the Auditory Only conditions. These findings suggest that knowledge of the co-actor's response alone via auditory information is not sufficient to activate the inhibitory processes leading to IOR. The activation of the mechanisms that lead to social IOR seems to be dependent on processing channels that code the spatial characteristics of action.     

Response-repetition effects depend on motor set: Evidence for anatomical coding in response selection

Successful motor performance requires a process of response selection that chooses the correct response out of a set of possible ones. Most theories of response selection assume that this selection process operates on spatial codes, which define the location of stimuli and responses in environmental coordinates, with little or no role for the anatomical codes of the effectors involved. In this study, we tested this assumption by investigating response-repetition effects in a response-cuing paradigm using two motor sets (fingers on one hand vs. fingers on two hands). Reaction time results demonstrated a robust response-repetition benefit that was greater for the one-hand set than for the two-hands set. Furthermore, with the one-hand set the repetition benefit was independent of cue type and cue-stimulus interval on the previous trial, whereas with the two-hands set it was strongly modulated by these two factors. These differential response-repetition effects for one- and two-hands motor sets demonstrate the important role of the neuro-anatomical hand distinction in response selection, thereby supporting multiple coding notions.     

Patterns of Response Times and Response Choices to Science Questions: The Influence of Relative Processing Time

We report on five experiments investigating response choices and response times to simple science questions that evoke student “misconceptions,” and we construct a simple model to explain the patterns of response choices. Physics students were asked to compare a physical quantity represented by the slope, such as speed, on simple physics graphs. We found that response times of incorrect answers, resulting from comparing heights, were faster than response times of correct answers comparing slopes. This result alone might be explained by the fact that height was typically processed faster than slope for this kind of task, which we confirmed in a separate experiment. However, we hypothesize that the difference in response time is an indicator of the cause (rather than the result) of the response choice. To support this, we found that imposing a 3‐s delay in responding increased the number of students comparing slopes (answering correctly) on the task. Additionally a significant proportion of students recognized the correct written rule (compare slope), but on the graph task they incorrectly compared heights. Finally, training either with repetitive examples or providing a general rule both improved scores, but only repetitive examples had a large effect on response times, thus providing evidence of dual paths or processes to a solution. Considering models of heuristics, information accumulation models, and models relevant to the Stroop effect, we construct a simple relative processing time model that could be viewed as a kind of fluency heuristic. The results suggest that misconception‐like patterns of answers to some science questions commonly found on tests may be explained in part by automatic processes that involve the relative processing time of considered dimensions and a priority to answer quickly.