| Abstract: | The area of contention between E. Festa-Martino, B. R. Ott, and W. C. Heindel (2004; see record 2004-12990-007) and A. Tales and colleagues (A. Tales, J. L. Muir, A. Bayer, R. Jones, & R. J. Snowden, 2002; A. Tales, J. L. Muir, A. Bayer, & R. J. Snowden, 2002; see record 2002-06031-015) is whether the Alzheimer's disease (AD)-related increased spatial orienting effect is attributable directly to the decreased phasic alerting effect or whether they are two separate effects. In a subsequent study, A. Tales, R. J. Snowden, M. Brown, and G. Wilcock (2006; see record 2006-20657-014) have provided evidence to suggest that the increased spatial orienting effect in AD is not necessarily the result of a decreased phasic alerting effect, as an AD-related increase in spatial orienting effect occurred under conditions in which the phasic alerting effect was the same for both groups. In a commentary to this article, E. K. Festa, B. R. Ott, and W. C. Heindel (2006; see record 2006-20657-015) discuss what they suggest may be potential confounding factors within the authors' study. In this reply, further data in support of the authors' interpretation are provided, and the authors address the points highlighted by Festa et al. (2006). In addition, the authors request that if Festa et al. (2006) are to account for the changes in spatial orienting effects in AD in terms of the shifts in the phasic alerting effects, then how do they postulate how so small a change in one can produce so large a change in the other? (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) |
