Comparing the effects of two correction procedures on human acquisition of sequential behavior patterns

Thirty-one college undergraduates learned to touch abstract stimuli on a computer screen in arbitrarily designated “correct” sequential orders. Four sets of seven stimuli were used; the stimuli were arrayed horizontally on the screen in random sequences. A correct response (i.e., touching first the stimulus designated as first) resulted in that stimulus appearing near the top of the screen in its correct sequential position (left to right), and remaining there until the end of the trial. Incorrect responses (i.e., touching a stimulus out of sequence) terminated the trial. New trials displayed either the same sequence as the one on which an error had occurred (same-order correction procedure), or a new random sequence (new-order correction procedure). Whenever all responses occurred in the correct sequence, the next trial displayed a new random sequence. Each phase ended when five consecutive correct response sequences occurred. Initially, the same-order correction procedure increased control by the position as well as by the shape of the stimuli; also, it produced more errors, more total trials, more trials to mastery, and more individual patterns of reacquisition than were produced by the new-order procedure.     

Predictable Mispredictions in the Context of Physical Activity and Sport: A Review

Theoretical models and research that aim to identify antecedents of participation in physical activities or sport can measure antecedents of physical activity behaviour through instruments that involve subjective predictions. In this article, we argue that such instruments may not reflect physical activity experiences or behaviour accurately because people are not very good predictors of future states. Additionally, we propose that mispredictions may be predictable because they are “caused” by tendencies to neglect processes related to hedonic adaptation and competing alternatives. We also suggest that it may be possible to improve measurement of antecedents through methods that focus respondents' attention on factors that cause mispredictions or through experiential sampling methods.     

Feedback effects on sequential ordering in humans

Under various feedback conditions, 38 college undergraduates were asked to rearrange abstract graphic characters on a computer screen, placing them in arbitrarily designated “correct” sequences. Two sets of seven horizontally arrayed stimuli were used. In Experiment 1, subjects in Group 1 learned to arrange the first set under Selection Feedback in which a “+” appeared above each character after it was selected in the correct order and to arrange the second set under Order Feedback in which a correct response produced a copy of the character in its correct ordinal position at the top of the screen. For Group 2 the order of these conditions was reversed. In Experiment 2, for subjects in Group 3, correct responses produced neither of these types of feedback. Subjects in Group 4 received Order Feedback only until the first set was correctly ordered once. Order Feedback was more effective than Selection Feedback during initial acquisition of the first set but not during maintenance; no differences were found for the second set. Only 2 of 9 subjects successfully put the characters in correct sequential order under the No Feedback condition. When, in Experiment 2, Order Feedback was eliminated after the first correctly arranged sequence, the steady-state criteria were met more slowly than in Experiment 1.     

The sources of visual recency: Movement and language in serial recall

Four experiments examine the importance of movement—the sequential ordering of stimulus features—in producing recency in the ordered serial recall of visual lists. The written recall of handsigns produced more recency when they were seen moving than still (Experiment I). Number lists presented as moving bar figures showed more recency than numbers which were displayed in the normal way with all features displayed simultaneously (Experiment II). The order in which features of abstract shapes are displayed can, itself, determine recency (Experiment III). However, a final experiment showed that still lip pictures of speech sounds generate more recency than letters representing those speech sounds. Therefore movement of stimulus features need not account for the extensive recency advantage in remembering lipread lists. The theoretical implications of these findings are discussed.     

Seek,and You Will Find: The Influence of Expectations on Evaluations of Physical Activity

Despite hundreds of studies on the effects of expectations on evaluations, few commentaries have focused on summarising the relevance of these findings for physical activity pursuits. Moreover, a parsimonious framework on the nature of these relationships in physical activity is yet to be developed. Such a framework is important given the significance of physical activity evaluations in predicting future physical activity participation. Based on existing models on persuasion, it is premised that the self can be persuaded by one's own expectations about physical activity and that such persuasion can support or refute those expectations. Which of these effects are created, and the extent of one's psychological and physical involvement in the creation of physical activity evaluations, is likely to hinge on motivation and ability to confirm or disconfirm expectations. Evidence from related bodies of literature is presented to support the primary tenets of the model, which is termed the expectation‐to‐evaluation model, and recommendations for practitioners and future research are offered.     

Cortisol and stimulus-induced arousal level differentially impact memory for items and backgrounds

Most studies examine the effects of stress on memory for visual information test memory for entire scenes. However, arousal levels may differentially influence memory for backgrounds as opposed to items. Participants encoded scenes that included a negative-high-arousal, negative-moderate-arousal, or neutral item on a neutral background. After a 30-minute (Experiment 1) or 48-hour delay (Experiment 2), participants underwent a stressor or control task while heart rate was recorded. A recognition memory task was then given with items and backgrounds presented separately. High-arousal images had a greater detriment in background memory than moderate-arousal images. Further, though there was evidence that change in cortisol level at retrieval was associated with impaired memory for items, it was not associated with detriments in background memory. Increased heart rate was associated with impaired memory for both items and backgrounds. This suggests that the level of sympathetic and cortisol reactivity differentially affects memory for items and backgrounds.     

Working memory, fluid intelligence, and impulsiveness in heavy media multitaskers

Ophir, Nass, and Wagner (Proceedings of the National Association of Sciences 106:15583–15587, 2009) reported that individuals who routinely engage in multiple forms of media use are actually worse at multitasking, possibly due to difficulties in ignoring irrelevant stimuli, from both external sources and internal representations in memory. Using the media multitasking index (MMI) developed by Ophir et al., we identified heavy media multitaskers (HMMs) and light media multitaskers (LMMs) and tested them on measures of attention, working memory, task switching, and fluid intelligence, as well as self-reported impulsivity and self-control. We found that people who reported engaging in heavy amounts of media multitasking reported being more impulsive and performed more poorly on measures of fluid intelligence than did those who did not frequently engage in media multitasking. However, we could find no evidence to support the contention that HMMs are worse in a multitasking situation such as task switching or that they show any deficits in dealing with irrelevant or distracting information, as compared with LMMs.