The effects of separate and interactive imagery on the recall of movement patterns.

Contrasted separate imagery instructions with interactive imagery instructions on memory for movement patterns. 48 undergraduates were presented pairs of movement patterns and were instructed to form separate images of each pattern or to form interactive images linking the patterns together. Cued recall performance and the organization of free recall was enhanced following interactive imagery instructions compared with separate imagery instructions. Total free recall, however, was similar for interactive and separate imagery. The advantage of interactive imagery over separate imagery in cued recall was attenuated when Ss were given instructions that imposed restrictions on the formation of their interactive images. Several explanations of the memorial consequences of imagery instructions are considered in light of these results, including I. Begg's (see record 1983-04913-001) organization-redintegration account of imagery instructions. (French abstract) (8 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The locus of location repetition latency effects.

We examined the processing locus (location vs. response) of location repetition effects in terms of the event [target (t) or distractor (d)] that initially occupied and then re-occupied the repeated location (i.e., tto- t, t-to-d, d-to-t, d-to-d). Trials were presented in pairs (prime, then probe) and 2:1 location-to-response mappings were used. Generally, for all repetition conditions, perceptual processing at the repeated location itself was facilitated (location locus), while re-activated responses delayed output production (response locus). More specifically, perceptual facilitation observed for a repeated location was independent of the kind of processing (i.e., t or d) that occurred earlier, suggesting that it is not the labeling of locations as relevant or irrelevant that determines location repetition effects. Response production was significantly slowed only when a just-inhibited response had then to be executed, which supported the view that the spatial negative priming effect has a response locus. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On the possible existence of nonselective restricted preparation.

18 university students were confronted with 2 types of trials: (a) dual-initiation (DI) in which 1 of 4 equiprobable finger responses had to be produced together with a deterministic foot pedal response and (b) initiation-suppression (IS) in which Ss had to suppress the finger response and execute the foot-pedal response alone. The reaction time (RT) difference between DI and IS trials was referred to as the trial type effect and was used as an index of nonselective restricted preparation intensity. Results reveal a significant foreperiod duration effect and a significant increase of the trial type effect as a function of an elevation in finger response probability magnitude. (French abstract) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Automatic versus volitional orienting and the production of the inhibition-of-return effect.

A single, to-be-ignored peripheral flash (i.e., cue) reflexively attracts an orienting response (oculomotor/attention/head turn) that ultimately causes reaction time delays to target stimuli that later arise at this cued location, in relation to when the target appears at a new position (i.e., the inhibition-of-return [IOR] effect). The basic question posed here dealt with whether an IOR effect is also produced following volitional orienting. Results from paired cue-trial stimulations, one a distractor and one a target (nonsalient/salient) event, positioned more or less symmetrically on either side of fixation, supported the net vector model of IOR (R. Klein, J. Christie, & E. P. Morris, 2005). Automatic orienting did not yield an IOR effect at the stimulated positions. When the need to later report cue-trial target location was added, an IOR effect appeared at distractor-occupied, but not at target-occupied, locations. Seemingly, an IOR effect can follow volitional orienting. In this instance, the IOR process seems capable of undergoing modulation; however, such modulation was not evident following automatic orienting. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Influence of probe-trial selection on the location negative priming effect.

Using the location variant of the typical negative priming procedure, participants were cued (100% reliable) before (Experiment 1) or after (Experiment 2) the prime trial as to whether a distractor would or would not accompany the target on the probe trial. The crucial results were that on cued trials, the predictable absence of the probe-trial distractor, but not its cued presence, produced the removal of the negative priming effect (disengagement), and that this disengagement of the priming process, motivated by the predictable absence of a probe-trial distractor, could take place on-line. These findings demonstrated the "selection-state" dependency (probe trial) of the location negative priming process, supporting inhibition-based and episodic retrieval models in their contention that the ultimate function of this process is to enhance the efficiency of future distractor processing, and hence selection. The disengagement results revealed an adaptive feature of a process that can be detrimental or irrelevant to upcoming processing. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Additive latency effects of selective and nonselective restricted priming types.

Examines the contention of C. Alain et al (see record 1989-21183-001) that a 3rd priming type known as nonselective restricted (NSR) priming is distinct from selective and nonselective priming. 32 university students completed a 4-choice reaction time (RT) task. Prediction probability (PP) and response probability (RP) exerted significant but noninteractive effects on RTs for prepared responses (most probable), suggesting that each of these probabilities influence different priming types. PP but not RP significantly altered RTs for the unprepared (less probable) responses. The hypothesized nonselective character of NSR priming was supported when responses were equiprobable. (French abstract) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On the possible existence of an intensity by duration trade-off for nonselective preparation.

A 4-choice reaction time (RT) task was used in a way that prevented any opportunity for 36 university students to engage in selective preparation. Changes in nonselective preparation intensity were promoted by varying time deadlines (the time in which Ss were challenged to react). Foreperiod duration was manipulated to assess the maintenance duration of the nonselective preparation under each time deadline. Results show a significant effect of foreperiod duration. Significantly faster RTs were registered for shorter time deadlines, showing that manipulation of time deadline was successful in promoting different levels of nonselective preparation intensity. (French abstract) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)