Attention Does Not Affect the Speed of Subjective Time,but Whether Temporal Information Guides Performance: A Large-Scale Study of Intrinsically Motivated Timers in a Real-Time Strategy Game

Many prepared actions have to be withheld for a certain amount of time in order to have the most beneficial outcome. Therefore, keeping track of time accurately is vital to using temporal regularities in our environment. Traditional theories assume that time is tracked by means of a clock and an “attentional gate” (AG) that modulates subjective time if not enough attentional resources are directed toward the temporal process. According to the AG theory, the moment of distraction does not have an influence on the subjective modulation. Here, we show, based on an analysis of 28,354 datasets, that highly motivated players of the online multiplayer real-time strategy game StarCraft2 indeed respond later to timed events when they are distracted by other tasks during the interval. However, transient periods of distraction during the interval influence the response time to a lesser degree than distraction just before the required response. We extend the work of Taatgen, van Rijn, and Anderson (2007) and propose an alternative active check theory that postulates that distracted attention prevents people from checking their internal clock; we demonstrate that this account better predicts variance observed in response time. By analyzing StarCraft2 data, we assessed the role of attention in a naturalistic setting that more directly generalizes to real-world settings than typical laboratory studies.     

Combination or Differentiation? Two theories of processing order in classification

Does cognition begin with an undifferentiated stimulus whole, which can be divided into distinct attributes if time and cognitive resources allow (Differentiation Theory)? Or does it begin with the attributes, which are combined if time and cognitive resources allow (Combination Theory)? Across psychology, use of the terms analytic and non-analytic imply that Differentiation Theory is correct—if cognition begins with the attributes, then synthesis, rather than analysis, is the more appropriate chemical analogy. We re-examined four classic studies of the effects of time pressure, incidental training, and concurrent load on classification and category learning (Kemler Nelson, 1984; Smith & Kemler Nelson, 1984; Smith & Shapiro, 1989; Ward, 1983). These studies are typically interpreted as supporting Differentiation Theory over Combination Theory, while more recent work in classification (Milton et al., 2008, et seq.) supports the opposite conclusion. Across seven experiments, replication and re-analysis of the four classic studies revealed that they do not support Differentiation Theory over Combination Theory—two experiments support Combination Theory over Differentiation Theory, and the remainder are compatible with both accounts. We conclude that Combination Theory provides a parsimonious account of both classic and more recent work in this area. The presented data do not require Differentiation Theory, nor a Combination–Differentiation hybrid account.     

Time after History: Derrida’s Two Readings of Heidegger

ABSTRACT

The essay situates and dissects Derrida’s two catalytic interventions into Heidegger’s thought on time and history—the seminar Heidegger: The Question of Being & History (1964-5) and the essay Ousia and Grammē (1968). The first aim is to explicate the relation of history to time in Heidegger’s seemingly untroubled passage from a textured and striated temporality into historicity, understood as structured, inscribed, and in a privileged sense, human time. Sustaining the difference of the inseparably intertwined notions of time and history is paramount for Heidegger, yet the place and function accorded to history will mark for Derrida, nothing less than the ultimate impasse of the project of Being and Time. Accordingly, the second aim of the essay is to present and question the productive elision of time and history that Derrida effects through narrative. On the one hand, this elision offers the ground of a forceful critique of the project of Being and Time. On the other hand, this pivotal gesture of deconstruction will always be compelled to seek, through a proliferation of names, those a-temporal and a-historical vanishing points for time and history that undercut the mutual conditioning of the two that it has laboured to effect.     

One-year test–retest reliability of the Maryland Resource for the Behavioral Utilization of the Reinforcement of Negative Stimuli (MRBURNS)

The Maryland Resource for the Behavioral Utilization of the Reinforcement of Negative Stimuli (MRBURNS) is a novel behavioral task designed to measure individual differences in negative reinforcement-based risk taking propensity. Performance on the MRBURNS has been linked with alcohol-related problems and negative reinforcement-based drinking motives, as well as symptoms of anxiety and depression; however, it is unclear if performance on the task represents a stable measure of negative reinforcement-based risk taking over time. As such, the current study aimed to examine the test–retest reliability of the MRBURNS over a period of one year. Results indicate that the correlation between year 1 and year 2 risk behavior (average number of pumps) on the MRBURNS was .43 across all trials. With the one year test–retest reliability of the MRBURNS established, the MRBURNS may be a useful approach to measuring the relative contribution of negative reinforcement-based risk taking in the development of risky behaviors over time, and may be used to monitor the effects of novel interventions that aim to reduce negative reinforcement based risk taking in the real world.     

Multi‐Criteria Ratios: What is the Unit?

When Analytic Hierarchy Process ratios are normalized to sum to unity, the unit of measure becomes obscure. This paper investigates this obscurity and whether ratio measurement is possible when there is no prior knowledge of the measurement unit. Initially, we look at ratio scales of tangible attributes of objects with well‐known measures. Then, ratio scales of unknown intangible attributes of objects are analysed. We discover that natural zero and a specific unit of measure are not necessarily used explicitly in deriving ratio scale measures. Nevertheless, the derived scale does have a derived unit of measurement. We conclude that although composite multi‐criteria answers are possible in ratio form, it is important to know that a unit of measure exists if ambiguities are to be avoided. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.