Is seeing believing? Expectant parents' outlooks on coparenting and later coparenting solidarity

This study examined short- and longer-term sequelae of parents' prenatal expectations of their future family process, and traced subsequent stability in coparenting solidarity from infancy through the toddler years. One hundred and ten couples expecting a first child participated in prenatal assessments of coparenting expectations and differences, and in 3-month post-partum evaluations. Forty-five couples completed subsequent assessments at 12 and 30 months. At each time point multi-method evaluations of coparental adjustment were obtained. Men's and women's expectancies during the pregnancy and the degree of difference between their self-reported beliefs about parenting predicted post-baby coparental adjustment, with latent class analyses suggesting aftereffects of prenatal expectancies up through 30 months for some couples. Coparental solidarity was also stable from 3 to 12 and from 12 to 30 months. Data indicate that the lens parents bring to bear on their emerging family system is not immaterial, and that early-emerging coparenting dynamics portend longer term coparenting adjustment.     

Spatial but not temporal cueing influences the mislocalisation of a target flashed during smooth pursuit

Human subjects misjudge the position of a target that is flashed during a pursuit eye movement. Their judgments are biased in the direction in which the eyes are moving. We investigated whether this bias can be reduced by making the appearance of the flash more predictable. In the normal condition, subjects pursued a moving target that flashed somewhere along its trajectory. After the presentation, they indicated where they had seen the flash. The mislocalisations in this condition were compared to mislocalisations in conditions in which the subjects were given information about when or where the flash would come. This information consisted of giving two warning flashes spaced at equal intervals before the target flash, of giving two warning beeps spaced at equal intervals before the target flash, or of showing the same stimulus twice. Showing the same stimulus twice significantly reduced the mislocalisation. The other conditions did not. We interpret this as indicating that it is not predictability as such that influences the performance, but the fact that the target appears at a spatially cued position. This was supported by a second experiment, in which we examined whether subjects make smaller misjudgments when they have to determine the distance between a target flashed during pursuit and a reference seen previously, than when they have to determine the distance between the flashed target and a reference seen afterwards. This was indeed the case, presumably because the reference provided a spatial cue for the flash when it was presented first. We conclude that a spatial cue reduces the mislocalisation of targets that are flashed during pursuit eye movements. The cue does not have to be exactly at the same position as the flash.     

The role of uncertainty in the systematic spatial mislocalization of moving objects

It only makes sense to talk about the position of a moving object if one specifies the time at which its position is of interest. The authors here show that when a flash or tone specifies the moment of interest, subjects estimate the moving object to be closer to where it passes the fixation point and further in its direction of motion than it really is. The authors propose that these biases arise from a combination of a large temporal uncertainty, a temporal asymmetry related to sampling the moving object's position, and a bias toward believing that one is looking at what one sees.