The utility of ground rule instructions with younger and older adult witnesses

This study examined the effectiveness of ground rules—simple instructions outlining the communication expectations of an investigative interview—with 73 younger (age 18–40) and 57 older (age 60+) adults. Participants watched a film depicting an implied sexual assault and were interviewed after a brief delay. One third received no ground rules, one third received ground rules as statements, and one third received the statements along with practice examples. The interview contained questions that required participants to apply one of the rules. Those who received ground rules were asked their perceptions of the rules. Results demonstrated that practicing ground rules improved response quality to problematic recognition questions, younger adults showed more variability in responses to different ground rules than older adults, and most participants found ground rule instructions useful in investigative interviews. Results provide support for the use of ground rules in interviews with adult witnesses.     

Effects of cadence on the acquisition and expression of podokinetic after-rotation

Podokinetic after-rotation (PKAR) occurs as blindfolded subjects inadvertently rotate when asked to step in-place following stepping in-place on a rotating surface. We examined the effects of using different cadences on PKAR to test the following hypothesis: the position signal indicating the amount of rotation between the trunk and the feet during each stance period of treadmill stimulation is used to determine the amount of rotation between the trunk and the feet that is expressed during each stance period of PKAR. Based on this hypothesis, we predicted that use of different cadences during treadmill stimulation would alter PKAR velocity because use of different cadences alters stance duration, thus changing the amount of limb rotation under the trunk during each stance phase of stimulation. We also predicted that use of different cadences during PKAR would alter PKAR velocity because the more steps that are taken in a given time the higher the velocity of PKAR given that the same rotation between trunk and feet occurs during each stance period. Use of different cadences during treadmill stimulation did not alter PKAR velocity, suggesting that PKAR velocity is not determined based upon a position signal regarding the relative rotation between the trunk and feet during stimulation. Use of different cadences during PKAR resulted in lower and higher velocities, respectively, than using a medium cadence. Based on these results, we now hypothesize that the PK system likely uses a velocity or acceleration signal present during stimulation to recalibrate the amount of relative rotation between the trunk and limbs that is expressed with each step during PKAR.     

Walking and running on the circular treadmill: transition speed and podokinetic aftereffects

The author compared 10 participants' self-selected walk-to-run transition speeds on a standard treadmill with those on a circular treadmill. The speed of the outer limb at walk-to-run transition on the circular treadmill and on the standard treadmill were very similar. Adaptive aftereffects from running and walking on the circular treadmill were also similar. When asked to step in place without vision, all participants inadvertently turned in circles following walking or running on the treadmill. The results of the present study suggest that the mechanisms controlling walk-to-run transitions are similar for the standard and circular treadmills and demonstrate the robust generalizability of locomotor aftereffects from running to walking. Adaptive control of speed, form, and direction may therefore share similar mechanisms for walking and running.