Notes

Connection Dynamics among Couples Coping with Breast Cancer: A planned out Evaluate.
In our final experiment, the response bias due to the previous trial remained present even when accounts involving motor effort were addressed. FR900506 Taken together, these findings provide a clear framework in which to incorporate current and past results regarding the biases apparent in sequential judgments, along with an appropriate method for investigating these biases. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).In an extension of Gibson's (1979) concept of object affordance, it has been proposed that motor representations are automatically evoked by pictures of graspable objects. A variety of effects on left/right-handed keypress responses to the perceptual attributes of such images have been taken as evidence that features of actions, including the hand best suited to grasp an object, contribute to the effect of the handle's left/right location on response selection. We present an argument against this claim by establishing that all of these effects are based on spatial codes, including effects mistakenly interpreted to reflect the influence of limb-specific features of a grasp action. We also present 6 experiments showing that under certain task conditions, limb-specific effects on response selection are indeed automatically generated by the task-irrelevant image of a graspable object. These effects are found either when the observer makes keypress or reach-and-grasp responses to the laterality of a pictured hand superimposed on a depicted object. Both tasks recruit control processes that determine how the hand is selected and configured to grasp an object. We infer that processes implicated in the planning of a reach-and-grasp action themselves determine whether the task-irrelevant picture of an object triggers motor-based rather than spatial features. Our results have deep implications for the widely used concept of an affordance for action furnished by an object. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).Performance is typically superior with modality-compatible stimulus-response sets (e.g., responding vocally to auditory stimuli and manually to visual stimuli) than with modality-incompatible sets (e.g., responding vocally to visual stimuli and manually to auditory stimuli). Here we studied the information-processing stage at which these modality compatibility effects arise. In three experiments using a dual-task setup, we demonstrated that these compatibility effects arose (at least partly) prior to a capacity-limited central stage that is commonly believed to be the origin of dual-task costs. We suggest that demands to employ a specific effector system bias perceptual processing toward effector-compatible stimulus modalities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).How do we distribute attention to interactive biological motion (BM)? There are 2 main hypotheses (a) distribution-by-individual hypothesis, suggesting that interactive BM will not be taken as one unit in attention distribution, and an individual BM is independently selected; and (b) distribution-by-group hypothesis, indicating that interactions between BM can integrate them as one attention unit. We examined these hypotheses using a modified cueing paradigm. Participants observed 4 upright BM interacting in pairs (paired condition) or not interacting (unpaired condition), and after a cue for 1 agent, they determined whether the probe was the letters T or L (Experiment 1, sample size = 20). The results demonstrated better performance for probes presented on BM in the same interaction compared to BM equidistant but in different interactions. These differences were not present in the unpaired condition or for inverted BM (Experiment 2, sample size = 20), excluding a possible influence of low-level features. The findings indicate that interactive BM can serve as the elementary unit of attention in accordance with the distribution-by-group hypothesis. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).Mindfulness interventions have been shown to improve several subcomponents of attention; however, the psychological mechanisms driving these improvements are unknown. Mindfulness interventions train individuals to monitor present moment experiences while adopting an attitude of acceptance toward these experiences. We conducted a theoretically driven randomized controlled trial to test the putative mechanisms of mindfulness training that drive improvements in attentional control. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 conditions (a) monitor and accept (MA) training, a standard 8-week mindfulness-based stress reduction (MBSR) intervention that included cultivation of both monitoring and acceptance skills; (b) monitor only (MO) training, a well-matched modified 8-week MBSR-adapted intervention that focused on monitoring skills only; or (c) no treatment (NT) control. Momentary attentional control was measured via ecological momentary assessment for 3 days at baseline and postintervention. Trait attentional control was assessed at baseline and postintervention using traditional self-report. Participants also completed a dichotic listening task to assess sustained attention at baseline and postintervention. We found that MA and MO participants improved in momentary and trait attentional control (but not attention task performance) relative to NT participants. Analyses of indirect effects were consistent with the possibility that increased momentary attentional control partially accounts for MA/MO intervention-related increases in trait attentional control. This randomized controlled trial provides one of the first experimental tests of the mechanisms of mindfulness interventions that drive improvements in attention outcomes. These findings support the notion that present-focused monitoring skills training drives mindfulness intervention-related improvements in momentary attentional control, which in turn fosters greater trait attentional control. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).The foundational tenet of brain training is that general cognitive functioning can be enhanced by completing computerized games, a notion that is both intuitive and appealing. Moreover, there is strong incentive to improve our cognitive abilities, so much so that it has driven a billion-dollar industry. However, whether brain training can really produce these desired outcomes continues to be debated. This is, in part, because the literature is replete with studies that use ill-defined criteria for establishing transferable improvements to cognition, often using single training and outcome measures with small samples. To overcome these limitations, we conducted a large-scale online study to examine whether practices and beliefs about brain training are associated with better cognition. We recruited a diverse sample of over 1000 participants, who had been using an assortment of brain training programs for up to 5 years. Cognition was assessed using multiple tests that measure attention, reasoning, working memory and planning.
Read More: https://www.selleckchem.com/products/FK-506-(Tacrolimus).html