scholarly journals Task instructions as a determiner of the GSR index of the orienting reflex

1982 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 235-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irving Maltzman ◽  
Jay Gould ◽  
Mary Pendery ◽  
Craig Wolff
1979 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 213-220 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irving Maltzman ◽  
Jay Gould ◽  
Ola J. Barnett ◽  
David C. Raskin ◽  
Craig Wolff

1982 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 221-228 ◽  
Author(s):  
Irving Maltzman ◽  
Carl Vincent ◽  
Craig Wolff

2017 ◽  
Vol 225 (2) ◽  
pp. 146-156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivar Bråten ◽  
Andreas Lien ◽  
John Nietfeld

Abstract. In two experiments with Norwegian undergraduates and one experiment with US undergraduates, we examined the potential effects of brief task instructions aligned with incremental and entity views of intelligence on students’ performance on a rational thinking task. The research demonstrated that even brief one-shot task instructions that deliver a mindset about intelligence intervention can be powerful enough to affect students’ performance on such a task. This was only true for Norwegian male students, however. Moreover, it was the task instruction aligned with an entity theory of intelligence that positively affected Norwegian male students’ performance on the rational thinking task, with this unanticipated finding speaking to the context- and culture-specificity of implicit theories of intelligence interventions.


2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Mills ◽  
Stefan Van Der Stigchel ◽  
Andrew Hollingworth ◽  
Michael D. Dodd

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carl Michael Orquiola Galang

Excitability in the motor cortex is modulated when we observe other people receiving a painful stimulus (Avenanti et al., 2005). However, the task dependency of this modulation is not well understood, as different paradigms have yielded seemingly different results. Previous neurophysiological work employing transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) suggests that watching another person’s hand being pierced by a needle leads to a muscle specific inhibition, assessed via motor evoked potentials. Results from previous behavioural studies suggest that overt behavioural responses are facilitated due to pain observation (Morrison et al., 2007a; 2007b). There are several paradigmatic differences both between typical TMS studies and behavioural studies, and within behavioural studies themselves, that limit our overall understanding of how pain observation affects the motor system. In the current study, we combine elements of typical TMS experimental designs in a behavioural assessment of how pain observation affects overt behavioural responding. Specifically, we examined the muscle specificity, timing, and direction of modulation of motor responses due to pain observation. To assess muscle specificity, we employed pain and non-pain videos from previous TMS studies in a Go/No-Go task in which participants responded by either pressing a key with their index finger or with their foot. To assess timing, we examined response times for Go signals presented at 0ms or 500ms after the video. Results indicate that observation of another individual receiving a painful stimulus leads to a non-effector specific, temporally extended response facilitation (e.g., finger and foot facilitation present at 0ms and 500ms delays), compared to observation of non-pain videos. This behavioural facilitation effect differs from the typical motor inhibition seen in TMS studies, and we argue that the effects of pain observation on the motor system are state-dependent, with different states induced via task instructions. We discuss our results in light of previous work on motor responses to pain observation.


2021 ◽  
pp. 174702182110315
Author(s):  
Motonori Yamaguchi ◽  
Husnain H. Shah ◽  
Bernhard Hommel

Two different variations of joint task switching led to different conclusions as to whether co-acting individuals share the same task-sets. The present study aimed at bridging this gap by replicating the version in which two actors performed two different tasks. Experiment 1 showed switch costs across two actors in a joint condition, which agreed with previous studies, but also yielded even larger switch costs in a solo condition, which contradicted the claim that actors represent an alternative task as their own when it is carried out by the co-actor but not when no one carries it out. Experiments 2 and 3 further examined switch costs in the solo condition with the aim to rule out possible influences of task instructions for and experiences with the other task that was not assigned to the actor. Before participants were instructed on the second of the two tasks, switch costs were still obtained without a co-actor when explicit task names (“COLOUR” and “SHAPE”) served as go/nogo signals (Experiment 2), but not when arbitrary symbols (“XXXX” and “​​​​”) served as go/nogo signals (Experiment 3). The results thus imply that switch costs depend on participants’ knowledge of task cues being assigned to two different tasks, but not on whether the other task is performed by a co-actor. These findings undermine the assumption that switch costs in the joint conditions reflect shared task-sets between co-actors in this procedure.


1972 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 195-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. M. Yaremko ◽  
Kenneth Keleman
Keyword(s):  

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document