Global stereopsis in rhesus monkeys

In three separate experiments an attempt was made to demonstrate global stereopsis in two rhesus monkeys by using random dot stereograms projected and viewed through polarizing filters. Although both animals learned a number of discriminations, control tests showed that both were perceiving non-depth cues such as monocular identification of minute pattern differences or brightness differences caused by reflections of polarized light. In a final experiment red/green anaglyph forms of the stereograms were viewed through red/green filters. Both monkeys, together with a third experimentally naive animal, showed incontrovertible evidence of prompt discrimination based on stereopsis. This paper makes a number of recommendations about the use of random dot stereograms to demonstrate global stereopsis in animals.     

Sex differences in working memory

In two separate studies, sex differences in modal-specific elements of working memory were investigated by utilizing words and pictures as stimuli. Groups of men and women performed a free-recall task of words or pictures in which 20 items were presented concurrently and the number of correct items recalled was measured. Following stimulus presentation, half of the participants were presented a verbal-based distraction task. On the verbal working-memory task, performance of men and women was not significantly different in the no-distraction condition. However, in the distraction condition, women's recall was significantly lower than their performance in the no-distraction condition and men's performance in the distraction condition. These findings are consistent with previous research and point to sex differences in cognitive ability putatively resulting from functional neuroanatomical dissimilarities. On the visual working-memory task, women showed significantly greater recall than men. These findings are inconsistent with previous research and underscore the need for further research.     

Domain interplay in mice and men: New possibilities for the “natural kinds” theory of emotion

The recent challenge to the long-held assumption that emotions are natural kinds (i.e., discreet naturally-distinguishable phenomena) has raised the necessity for a closer look into the nature of affective research. If emotions are not natural kinds, there will be widespread consequences for the theoretical foundations of behavioral neuroscience and grave implications for the validity of animal models of emotion and affective disorders. This paper presents the evidence against the hypothesis of emotions as natural kinds, and offers the “domain-interplay” concept as a novel and effective experimental method for establishing the theoretical rationale of non-human animal research in the neurosciences.     

Evaluating Identification Evidence from Multiple Eyewitnesses

When two or more eyewitnesses provide identification evidence in a given investigation, their testimony will be characterized either by unanimity or by contradictions. In the present research, nominal groups of several sizes were constructed from the distributions of individual responses in a variety of previous studies. It was found that both unanimity and contradictions could be expected to occur with considerable frequency. When unanimity occurred, the unanimous response was very likely to be accurate, particularly in large groups. When contradictions occurred, the most common, or modal, response was most probably accurate, particularly when four or more witnesses endorsed the modal position. These and several subsidiary findings resulted largely from the fact that individual errors were randomly distributed across many different incorrect response options. Consequently, even when eyewitnesses were generally inaccurate, the correct option was still chosen more frequently than any single incorrect option. Distinctions between the implications of individual vs. multiple eyewitness testimony were discussed.     

Rehabilitating AI: Argument Loci and the Case for Artificial Intelligence

This article examines argument structures and strategies in pro and con argumentation about the possibility of human-level artificial intelligence (AI) in the near term future. It examines renewed controversy about strong AI that originated in a prominent 1999 book and continued at major conferences and in periodicals, media commentary, and Web-based discussions through 2002. It will be argued that the book made use of implicit, anticipatory refutation to reverse prevailing value hierarchies related to AI. Drawing on Perelman and Olbrechts-Tyteca's (1969) study of refutational argument, this study considers points of contact between opposing arguments that emerged in opposing loci, dissociations, and casuistic reasoning. In particular, it shows how perceptions of AI were reframed and rehabilitated through metaphorical language, reversal of the philosophical pair artificial/natural, appeals to the paradigm case, and use of the loci of quantity and essence. Furthermore, examining responses to the book in subsequent arguments indicates the topoi characteristic of the rhetoric of technology advocacy.     

The Organization of Justificatory Discourse in Interaction: A Comparison Within and Across Cultures

Previous scholarship has focused on inductive and deductive patterns as the two predominant modes of reasoning. In this paper, we argue that there are many ways that people from diverse cultures organize their justificatory reasoning in conversation with others and that these patterns are connected, in part, to cultural beliefs and values. We report on a study of people who identify themselves as being in one of four cultural groups: African Americans, Asian Americans, Asians, and European Americans. The types of organization they used in their conversations included deductive, inductive, abductive, and narrative patterns. Abduction occurred as often as induction and deduction across groups. Narratives were used equally by all of the groups, but they occurred less frequently than the other types. Asian Americans used inductive patterns more than other types, and Asians were most likely to reason deductively. These choices did not appear to have an effect on partners' judgments, although Asians received the lowest appropriateness ratings, and both Asians and Asian Americans were given the lowest effectiveness ratings.