Two types of serial dependence in visual working memory

Stimulus representations in working memory depend on memory traces of past stimuli both from previous trials and from the current trial. However, it is unclear whether the same or different mechanisms underlie this serial dependence across and within trials. We directly contrasted estimates of bias for pairs of immediately successive stimuli across and within trials. In each trial, participants memorized two consecutive motion direction stimuli (S1 and S2) and after a short delay were cued to report one of them. We found serial dependence across trials: The current S1 was attracted towards the preceding S2 when the latter had been cued for report. In contrast, within the same trial S2 was repulsed from S1. In addition, repulsion within a trial occurred for a broader range of motion direction differences between stimuli than attraction across trials. A second experiment in which 25% of trials did not require a response demonstrated that across‐trial attraction did not depend on whether the previous S2 actually had to be reported. Our findings provide evidence for two types of serial dependence operating across and within trials. They support the notion of different mechanisms integrating or segregating current from similar past memory contents depending on their task relevance.     

Explicit Awareness does not Modulate Retrograde Interference Effects in Sequence Learning

Motor sequences are learned explicitly or implicitly based on conscious awareness of the sequence. Interference happens when two sequences are learned successively. Here, we aimed to determine whether implicit and explicit sequence learning are affected differently by retrograde interference. Young healthy volunteers participated in either a control or interference group and either an explicit or implicit learning condition. We used a modified serial reaction time task to induce sequence learning and control awareness. Results showed that the overall amount of sequence learning was greater in the explicit condition compared to implicit. However, sequence learning was equally susceptible to retrograde interference under either condition. We conclude that although susceptible to interference, explicit awareness improves overall sequence learning compared to implicit conditions.     

The Effect of Practice Schedule on Context-Dependent Learning

It is well established that random practice compared to blocked practice enhances motor learning. Additionally, while information in the environment may be incidental, learning is also enhanced when an individual performs a task within the same environmental context in which the task was originally practiced. This study aimed to disentangle the effects of practice schedule and incidental/environmental context on motor learning. Participants practiced three finger sequences under either a random or blocked practice schedule. Each sequence was associated with specific incidental context (i.e., color and location on the computer screen) during practice. The participants were tested under the conditions when the sequence-context associations remained the same or were changed from that of practice. When the sequence-context association was changed, the participants who practiced under blocked schedule demonstrated greater performance decrement than those who practiced under random schedule. The findings suggested that those participants who practiced under random schedule were more resistant to the change of environmental context.     

Practice variability promotes an external focus of attention and enhances motor skill learning

Variability in practice has been shown to enhance motor skill learning. Benefits of practice variability have been attributed to motor schema formation (variable versus constant practice), or more effortful information processing (random versus blocked practice). We hypothesized that, among other mechanisms, greater practice variability might promote an external focus of attention on the intended movement effect, while less variability would be more conducive to a less effective internal focus on body movements. In Experiment 1, the learning of a throwing task was enhanced by variable versus constant practice, and variable group participants reported focusing more on the distance to the target (external focus), while constant group participants focused more on their posture (internal focus). In Experiment 2, golf putting was learned more effectively with a random compared with a blocked practice schedule. Furthermore, random group learners reported using a more effective distal external focus (i.e., distance to the target) to a greater extent, whereas blocked group participants used a less effective proximal focus (i.e., putter) more often. While attentional focus was assessed through questionnaires in the first two experiments, learners in Experiment 3 were asked to report their current attentional focus at any time during practice. Again, the learning of a throwing task was more effective after random relative to blocked practice. Also, random practice learners reported using more external focus cues, while in blocked practice participants used more internal focus cues. The findings suggest that the attentional foci induced by different practice schedules might be at least partially responsible for the learning differences.     

Remembering versus knowing during face recognition in unilateral temporal lobe epilepsy patients with or without hippocampal sclerosis

Recognition memory involves knowing an item was learned (familiarity) and remembering contextual details about the prior learning episode (recollection). We tested three competing hypotheses about the role of the hippocampus in recollection and familiarity. It mediates either recollection or familiarity, or serves both processes. We further tested whether the left temporal lobe mediates recollection and the right temporal lobe familiarity (modes of processing view), or whether the two temporal lobes mediate remembering material specifically (material specificity view). We investigated 24-h face recognition using the "remember-know" procedure. We studied 23 left and 24 right temporal lobe epilepsy (LTLE/RTLE) patients with and without hippocampal sclerosis (HS+/HS-) and 31 healthy participants. HS+ patients made fewer know responses than HS- patients or healthy participants. RTLE was related to fewer remember responses than LTLE. Our results suggest the hippocampus has a critical role in familiarity. Further, our findings support the material specificity hypothesis of laterality.     

延迟命名任务中图词干扰效应的眼动研究

采用图-词分离呈现及眼动技术探讨在延时命名条件下图-词干扰效应发生的位置。结果发现：（1）延时命名图片时,仍出现图-词干扰效应和频率效应;（2）与命名干扰词相比,命名图片时图片的回视率高,注视时间长;（3）图片的注视时间也出现频率效应和图-词干扰效应。这说明即使在延时命名图片的条件下,目标词汇仍需要再次激活,频率效应和图-词干扰效应是发生在词汇化过程中,反驳反应排除理论的图-词干扰反应选择阶段的观点,支持了词汇化选择竞争的理论。     

Immediate source-monitoring, self-focused attention and the positive symptoms of schizophrenia

Previous research suggests that tendencies to misattribute one's own thoughts to an external source, as assessed by an immediate source-monitoring test, are associated with auditory verbal hallucinations (AVHs). However, recent research suggests that such tendencies are associated instead with symptoms of thought interference. The main aim of the present study was to examine whether such tendencies are differentially associated with different types of thought interference, with AVHs, or with both. It has also been suggested that external misattributions are especially likely to occur with emotionally salient material and if the individual's focus is on the self. These suggestions were also tested. The positive psychotic symptoms of 57 individuals with a diagnosis of schizophrenia were assessed and they then completed the Self-Focus Sentence Completion blank. Immediately after completing each sentence they were asked to indicate to what extent the sentence was their own. The number of sentences that were not rated as completely their own served as their externalisation score. Externalisation scores correlated significantly with the severity of three symptoms: voices commenting, delusions of being controlled, and thought insertion. In a logistic regression analysis, all three of these symptoms were significantly and independently related to externalisation. Externalisation was not associated with either a negative or a neutral self-focus. Thus tendencies to misattribute one's own thoughts to an external source are associated with AVHs and some, but not all, symptoms of thought interference. The importance for externalisation of self-focused attention and of the emotional salience of the elicited thoughts was not supported.     

组织中主管-下属关系的运作机制与效果

基于社会交换的理论视角, 以下属关系投入-主管资源回报的概念架构来展现组织中主管与下属关系互动的实质, 对主管-下属关系的运作效果与机制进行跨层次的实证研究。通过问卷法获得54个工作群体的426名下属与主管的对偶数据, 基于HLM分析的结果表明：下属在工作之余对主管的私人关系投入不仅能直接获得主管的工具性资源回报与情感性资源回报, 还能通过领导-成员交换(LMX)间接地获得主管的工具性与情感性资源回报, 而在工作群体内基于私人关系进行人力资源管理决策的特征对主管与下属之间的关系互动与关系质量也存在一定程度的影响。     

Permission from an Input/Output Perspective

Input/output logics are abstract structures designed to represent conditional obligations and goals. In this paper we use them to study conditional permission. This perspective provides a clear separation of the familiar notion of negative permission from the more elusive one of positive permission. Moreover, it reveals that there are at least two kinds of positive permission. Although indistinguishable in the unconditional case, they are quite different in conditional contexts. One of them, which we call static positive permission, guides the citizen and law enforcement authorities in the assessment of specific actions under current norms, and it behaves like a weakened obligation. Another, which we call dynamic positive permission, guides the legislator. It describes the limits on the prohibitions that may be introduced into a code, and under suitable conditions behaves like a strengthened negative permission.     

结构限制和作业难度对双重作业绩效的影响

通过对不同双重任务的呈现间隔时间和不同任务难度的双重任务的操作研究,探讨了结构限制与资源竞争对双重任务操作绩效的影响。实验结果表明：(1)两种作业呈现的间隔时间对双重任务操作绩效有明显的影响。间隔时间越大,双重任务的作业绩效越好。(2)作业难度对双重任务的操作有明显的影响。作业难度越大,双重任务的操作绩效越差。(3)两个作业呈现的间隔时间不同并不影响作业难度对双重任务操作绩效的作用。本研究的实验结果进一步证实了双重任务操作的三因素假设：结构限制、信息干扰和资源竞争是影响双重任务操作绩效的三个独立的原因。