Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000542
Steven Glautier,Hedwig Eisenbarth,Anne Macaskill
A preference reversal is observed when a preference for a larger-later (LL) reward over a smaller-sooner (SS) reward reverses as both rewards come closer in time. Preference reversals are common in everyday life and in the laboratory and are often claimed to support hyperbolic delay-discounting models which, in their simplest form, can model reversals with only one free parameter. However, it is not clear if the temporal location of preference reversals can be predicted a priori. Studies testing model predictions have not found support for them, but they overlooked the well-documented effect of reinforcer magnitude on discounting rate. Therefore, we directly tested hyperbolic and exponential model predictions in a pre-registered study by assessing individual discount rates for two reinforcer magnitudes. We then made individualized predictions about pairs of choices between which preference reversals should occur. With 107 participants, we found (1) little evidence that hyperbolic and exponential models could predict the temporal location of preference reversals, (2) some evidence that hyperbolic models had better predictive performance than exponential models, and (3) in contrast to many previous studies, that exponential models generally produced superior fits to the observed data than hyperbolic models.
{"title":"In Search of the Preference Reversal Zone.","authors":"Steven Glautier,Hedwig Eisenbarth,Anne Macaskill","doi":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000542","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000542","url":null,"abstract":"A preference reversal is observed when a preference for a larger-later (LL) reward over a smaller-sooner (SS) reward reverses as both rewards come closer in time. Preference reversals are common in everyday life and in the laboratory and are often claimed to support hyperbolic delay-discounting models which, in their simplest form, can model reversals with only one free parameter. However, it is not clear if the temporal location of preference reversals can be predicted a priori. Studies testing model predictions have not found support for them, but they overlooked the well-documented effect of reinforcer magnitude on discounting rate. Therefore, we directly tested hyperbolic and exponential model predictions in a pre-registered study by assessing individual discount rates for two reinforcer magnitudes. We then made individualized predictions about pairs of choices between which preference reversals should occur. With 107 participants, we found (1) little evidence that hyperbolic and exponential models could predict the temporal location of preference reversals, (2) some evidence that hyperbolic models had better predictive performance than exponential models, and (3) in contrast to many previous studies, that exponential models generally produced superior fits to the observed data than hyperbolic models.","PeriodicalId":12173,"journal":{"name":"Experimental psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"138532231","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000540
Sébastien Gionet, D. Guitard, J. Saint-Aubin
Abstract: Reading some words aloud during presentation, that is, producing them, and reading other words silently generate a large memory advantage for words that are produced. This robust within-list production effect is in contrast with the between-lists condition in which all words are read aloud or silently. In a between-lists condition, produced items are better recognized, but not better recalled. The lack of a between-lists production effect with recall tasks has often been presented as one of its defining characteristics and as a benchmark for evaluating models. Recently, Cyr et al. (2021) showed that this occurs because item production interacts with serial positions: Produced items are less well recalled on the first serial positions than silently read items, while the reverse pattern is observed for the recency portion of the curve. However, this pattern was observed with a repeated-measures design, and it may be a by-product of compensatory processes under the control of participants. Here, using a between-participants design, we observed the predicted interaction between production and serial positions. The results further support the Revised Feature Model (RFM) suggesting that produced items are encoded with more modality-dependent distinctive features, therefore benefiting recall. However, the production of the additional distinctive features would disrupt rehearsal.
{"title":"The Production Effect Interacts With Serial Positions","authors":"Sébastien Gionet, D. Guitard, J. Saint-Aubin","doi":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000540","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000540","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract: Reading some words aloud during presentation, that is, producing them, and reading other words silently generate a large memory advantage for words that are produced. This robust within-list production effect is in contrast with the between-lists condition in which all words are read aloud or silently. In a between-lists condition, produced items are better recognized, but not better recalled. The lack of a between-lists production effect with recall tasks has often been presented as one of its defining characteristics and as a benchmark for evaluating models. Recently, Cyr et al. (2021) showed that this occurs because item production interacts with serial positions: Produced items are less well recalled on the first serial positions than silently read items, while the reverse pattern is observed for the recency portion of the curve. However, this pattern was observed with a repeated-measures design, and it may be a by-product of compensatory processes under the control of participants. Here, using a between-participants design, we observed the predicted interaction between production and serial positions. The results further support the Revised Feature Model (RFM) suggesting that produced items are encoded with more modality-dependent distinctive features, therefore benefiting recall. However, the production of the additional distinctive features would disrupt rehearsal.","PeriodicalId":12173,"journal":{"name":"Experimental psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41651118","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
A preference reversal is observed when a preference for a larger-later (LL) reward over a smaller-sooner (SS) reward reverses as both rewards come closer in time. Preference reversals are common in everyday life and in the laboratory and are often claimed to support hyperbolic delay-discounting models which, in their simplest form, can model reversals with only one free parameter. However, it is not clear if the temporal location of preference reversals can be predicted a priori. Studies testing model predictions have not found support for them, but they overlooked the well-documented effect of reinforcer magnitude on discounting rate. Therefore, we directly tested hyperbolic and exponential model predictions in a pre-registered study by assessing individual discount rates for two reinforcer magnitudes. We then made individualized predictions about pairs of choices between which preference reversals should occur. With 107 participants, we found (1) little evidence that hyperbolic and exponential models could predict the temporal location of preference reversals, (2) some evidence that hyperbolic models had better predictive performance than exponential models, and (3) in contrast to many previous studies, that exponential models generally produced superior fits to the observed data than hyperbolic models.
{"title":"In Search of the Preference Reversal Zone.","authors":"S. Glautier, H. Eisenbarth, Anne C. Macaskill","doi":"10.31219/osf.io/zg6fk","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31219/osf.io/zg6fk","url":null,"abstract":"A preference reversal is observed when a preference for a larger-later (LL) reward over a smaller-sooner (SS) reward reverses as both rewards come closer in time. Preference reversals are common in everyday life and in the laboratory and are often claimed to support hyperbolic delay-discounting models which, in their simplest form, can model reversals with only one free parameter. However, it is not clear if the temporal location of preference reversals can be predicted a priori. Studies testing model predictions have not found support for them, but they overlooked the well-documented effect of reinforcer magnitude on discounting rate. Therefore, we directly tested hyperbolic and exponential model predictions in a pre-registered study by assessing individual discount rates for two reinforcer magnitudes. We then made individualized predictions about pairs of choices between which preference reversals should occur. With 107 participants, we found (1) little evidence that hyperbolic and exponential models could predict the temporal location of preference reversals, (2) some evidence that hyperbolic models had better predictive performance than exponential models, and (3) in contrast to many previous studies, that exponential models generally produced superior fits to the observed data than hyperbolic models.","PeriodicalId":12173,"journal":{"name":"Experimental psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41612516","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2022-01-01DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000544
Tyler Surber, Tyler Overstreet, Hannah L Masoner, Catherine Dowell, A. Hajnal
The information that specifies whether an object is within reach is a complex pattern that depends on body-scaled parameters measured from an egocentric reference point. The pattern is a function of relevant body proportions (eye height, shoulder height [SH], arm length) with respect to the spatial location of the target object. In addition to not knowing how these factors map onto perception, it is also not known whether the egocentric viewpoint is centered at the eye or the shoulder. In three experiments, we systematically tested whether observers can perceive eye height and SH (Experiment 1), whether they can point accurately in the direction of a target object (Experiment 2), and whether they can point accurately to judge if the target object is within reach (Experiment 3). Experiment 1 demonstrated that participants are more accurate at judging their own eye height than SH. Experiment 2 revealed that participants can more accurately point to a target object's location when measured from the shoulder as a reference point than when measured from the eye. In Experiment 3, we showed that a higher-order variable that includes arm length, body height, and angle of declination to the target successfully predicted affordance judgments, regardless of a reference point. We consider this as evidence that the invariant is functionally specific, not tied to any one particular anatomical body part.
{"title":"Functional Specificity of the Affordance of Reaching.","authors":"Tyler Surber, Tyler Overstreet, Hannah L Masoner, Catherine Dowell, A. Hajnal","doi":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000544","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000544","url":null,"abstract":"The information that specifies whether an object is within reach is a complex pattern that depends on body-scaled parameters measured from an egocentric reference point. The pattern is a function of relevant body proportions (eye height, shoulder height [SH], arm length) with respect to the spatial location of the target object. In addition to not knowing how these factors map onto perception, it is also not known whether the egocentric viewpoint is centered at the eye or the shoulder. In three experiments, we systematically tested whether observers can perceive eye height and SH (Experiment 1), whether they can point accurately in the direction of a target object (Experiment 2), and whether they can point accurately to judge if the target object is within reach (Experiment 3). Experiment 1 demonstrated that participants are more accurate at judging their own eye height than SH. Experiment 2 revealed that participants can more accurately point to a target object's location when measured from the shoulder as a reference point than when measured from the eye. In Experiment 3, we showed that a higher-order variable that includes arm length, body height, and angle of declination to the target successfully predicted affordance judgments, regardless of a reference point. We consider this as evidence that the invariant is functionally specific, not tied to any one particular anatomical body part.","PeriodicalId":12173,"journal":{"name":"Experimental psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2022-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48854641","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000539
Erik M. Benau, R. Atchley
Abstract. We evaluated the interaction of emotion, interoceptive awareness (IA), and attention using an attentional blink (AB) task. Healthy undergraduates completed a cardiac awareness task and, based on previously validated cut scores, were classified as high or average perceivers (n = 19 in each group; matched on age and gender). Participants completed an AB task with counterbalanced emotional and/or neutral lexical stimuli as the first target (T1) and/or the second target (T2). Both high and average perceivers exhibited retroactive interference in conditions where T2 immediately followed T1. However, only the average perceivers exhibited a significant blink effect: They reported T2 inaccurately in trials in which one intervening stimulus occurred between T1 and T2. High perceivers exhibited their best performance in trials where both targets were emotional; average perceivers exhibited their worst performance in these trials. These results contribute to a small but growing literature that suggests IA and exteroceptive attention are related systems.
{"title":"The Blink and the Body","authors":"Erik M. Benau, R. Atchley","doi":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000539","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000539","url":null,"abstract":"Abstract. We evaluated the interaction of emotion, interoceptive awareness (IA), and attention using an attentional blink (AB) task. Healthy undergraduates completed a cardiac awareness task and, based on previously validated cut scores, were classified as high or average perceivers (n = 19 in each group; matched on age and gender). Participants completed an AB task with counterbalanced emotional and/or neutral lexical stimuli as the first target (T1) and/or the second target (T2). Both high and average perceivers exhibited retroactive interference in conditions where T2 immediately followed T1. However, only the average perceivers exhibited a significant blink effect: They reported T2 inaccurately in trials in which one intervening stimulus occurred between T1 and T2. High perceivers exhibited their best performance in trials where both targets were emotional; average perceivers exhibited their worst performance in these trials. These results contribute to a small but growing literature that suggests IA and exteroceptive attention are related systems.","PeriodicalId":12173,"journal":{"name":"Experimental psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46031340","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000531
Ursula Hess, Konstantinos Kafetsios
The accurate decoding of facial emotion expressions lies at the center of many research traditions in psychology. Much of this research, while paying lip service to the importance of context in emotion perception, has used stimuli that were carefully created to be deprived of contextual information. The participants' task is to associate the expression shown in the face with a correct label, essentially changing a social perception task into a cognitive task. In fact, in many cases, the task can be carried out correctly without engaging emotion recognition at all. The present article argues that infusing context in emotion perception does not only add an additional source of information but changes the way that participants approach the task by rendering it a social perception task rather than a cognitive task. Importantly, distinguishing between accuracy (perceiving the intended emotions) and bias (perceiving additional emotions to those intended) leads to a more nuanced understanding of social emotion perception. Results from several studies that use the Assessment of Contextual Emotions demonstrate the significance and social functionality of simultaneously considering emotion decoding accuracy and bias for social interaction in different cultures, their key personality and societal correlates, and their function for close relationships processes.
{"title":"Infusing Context Into Emotion Perception Impacts Emotion Decoding Accuracy.","authors":"Ursula Hess, Konstantinos Kafetsios","doi":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000531","DOIUrl":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000531","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b></b> The accurate decoding of facial emotion expressions lies at the center of many research traditions in psychology. Much of this research, while paying lip service to the importance of context in emotion perception, has used stimuli that were carefully created to be deprived of contextual information. The participants' task is to associate the expression shown in the face with a <i>correct</i> label, essentially changing a social perception task into a cognitive task. In fact, in many cases, the task can be carried out correctly without engaging emotion recognition at all. The present article argues that infusing context in emotion perception does not only add an additional source of information but changes the way that participants approach the task by rendering it a social perception task rather than a cognitive task. Importantly, distinguishing between accuracy (perceiving the intended emotions) and bias (perceiving additional emotions to those intended) leads to a more nuanced understanding of social emotion perception. Results from several studies that use the Assessment of Contextual Emotions demonstrate the significance and social functionality of simultaneously considering emotion decoding accuracy and bias for social interaction in different cultures, their key personality and societal correlates, and their function for close relationships processes.</p>","PeriodicalId":12173,"journal":{"name":"Experimental psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.1,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9446470/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44276184","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000534
Manru Liu, Jianmin Zeng, Ziyun Gao
The anchoring effect refers to a decision bias that initial irrelevant information can influence late judgment. So far, most (if not all) studies on the anchoring effect adopted only point anchors (e.g., "Do you want to buy a computer with a price higher or lower than $1,000?"). In reality, people also use interval anchors (e.g., "Do you want to buy a computer with a price within $800-1,200?"). Can interval anchors also produce anchoring effect? Which kind of anchors have stronger anchoring effect? To answer these questions, we conducted four experiments involving quite different content. In each experiment, we found extremely significant anchoring effects for point anchors and interval anchors, respectively, but no significant difference between them. The results suggest that rarely researched interval anchors can be as powerful as intensively investigated point anchors and thus deserve more research and applications henceforth.
{"title":"The Interval Anchoring Effect.","authors":"Manru Liu, Jianmin Zeng, Ziyun Gao","doi":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000534","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000534","url":null,"abstract":"The anchoring effect refers to a decision bias that initial irrelevant information can influence late judgment. So far, most (if not all) studies on the anchoring effect adopted only point anchors (e.g., \"Do you want to buy a computer with a price higher or lower than $1,000?\"). In reality, people also use interval anchors (e.g., \"Do you want to buy a computer with a price within $800-1,200?\"). Can interval anchors also produce anchoring effect? Which kind of anchors have stronger anchoring effect? To answer these questions, we conducted four experiments involving quite different content. In each experiment, we found extremely significant anchoring effects for point anchors and interval anchors, respectively, but no significant difference between them. The results suggest that rarely researched interval anchors can be as powerful as intensively investigated point anchors and thus deserve more research and applications henceforth.","PeriodicalId":12173,"journal":{"name":"Experimental psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"57294539","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000535
Qiongwen Cao, Andre Hofmeyr, Eustace Hsu, Shan Luo, J. Monterosso
Delay discounting tasks present alternatives that differ in two attributes: amount and delay. Typically, choice is modeled by application of a discount function to each option, allowing alternative-wise comparison. However, if participants make decisions by comparing attributes, manipulations that affect the salience of either attribute may affect patience. In Experiment 1, participants completed one block of trials in which amount was a fixed attribute (constant across trials), and another in which delay was fixed. Consistent with the hypothesis that the varying attribute would be more salient, participants exhibited less patience in the amount-fixed condition. Moreover, this effect was larger for participants who responded more quickly when making choices that favored the varying attribute. In Experiment 2, these findings were extended by adding trial blocks with a working memory dual task. We replicated the fixed-attribute effect, along with the aforementioned association with reaction time. Contrary to expectation, the fixed-attribute effect was not larger when participants were under working memory load. Instead, working memory load was associated with more patient responses, which may be related to idiosyncrasies of the task including the absence of immediate rewards. Overall, results suggest a fixed-attribute effect on patience, which is consistent with a multi-attribute decision framework.
{"title":"Fixed Attributes and Discounting Behavior.","authors":"Qiongwen Cao, Andre Hofmeyr, Eustace Hsu, Shan Luo, J. Monterosso","doi":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000535","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000535","url":null,"abstract":"Delay discounting tasks present alternatives that differ in two attributes: amount and delay. Typically, choice is modeled by application of a discount function to each option, allowing alternative-wise comparison. However, if participants make decisions by comparing attributes, manipulations that affect the salience of either attribute may affect patience. In Experiment 1, participants completed one block of trials in which amount was a fixed attribute (constant across trials), and another in which delay was fixed. Consistent with the hypothesis that the varying attribute would be more salient, participants exhibited less patience in the amount-fixed condition. Moreover, this effect was larger for participants who responded more quickly when making choices that favored the varying attribute. In Experiment 2, these findings were extended by adding trial blocks with a working memory dual task. We replicated the fixed-attribute effect, along with the aforementioned association with reaction time. Contrary to expectation, the fixed-attribute effect was not larger when participants were under working memory load. Instead, working memory load was associated with more patient responses, which may be related to idiosyncrasies of the task including the absence of immediate rewards. Overall, results suggest a fixed-attribute effect on patience, which is consistent with a multi-attribute decision framework.","PeriodicalId":12173,"journal":{"name":"Experimental psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48051864","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000537
Léo Dutriaux, V. Gyselinck
The grounded cognition approach posits the involvement of sensory-motor processes in the representation of knowledge. However, the functional impact of these processes on cognition has been questioned, and some authors have explored the effect of motor interference on memory to test causally this hypothesis. In a seminal study, Dutriaux and Gyselinck (2016) showed that keeping the hands behind the back during learning decreases the memory of manipulable objects, but not the memory of nonmanipulable objects. The aim of this paper is to shed light on the mechanism behind the effect of posture in memory observed by Dutriaux and Gyselinck. The present experiment replicated the posture manipulation during learning but asked participants to keep their hands behind the back during recall. Results showed a similar detrimental effect of the hands behind the back specific to manipulable objects. This shows that the mechanism behind this effect arises from postural interference rather than from a compatibility between the posture during learning and the posture during recall and adds new evidence in favor of the sensory-motor grounding of knowledge.
{"title":"The Postural Effect on the Memory of Manipulable Objects.","authors":"Léo Dutriaux, V. Gyselinck","doi":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000537","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000537","url":null,"abstract":"The grounded cognition approach posits the involvement of sensory-motor processes in the representation of knowledge. However, the functional impact of these processes on cognition has been questioned, and some authors have explored the effect of motor interference on memory to test causally this hypothesis. In a seminal study, Dutriaux and Gyselinck (2016) showed that keeping the hands behind the back during learning decreases the memory of manipulable objects, but not the memory of nonmanipulable objects. The aim of this paper is to shed light on the mechanism behind the effect of posture in memory observed by Dutriaux and Gyselinck. The present experiment replicated the posture manipulation during learning but asked participants to keep their hands behind the back during recall. Results showed a similar detrimental effect of the hands behind the back specific to manipulable objects. This shows that the mechanism behind this effect arises from postural interference rather than from a compatibility between the posture during learning and the posture during recall and adds new evidence in favor of the sensory-motor grounding of knowledge.","PeriodicalId":12173,"journal":{"name":"Experimental psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"44765874","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pub Date : 2021-11-01DOI: 10.1027/1618-3169/a000538
{"title":"Correction to Wu et al., 2021.","authors":"","doi":"10.1027/1618-3169/a000538","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1027/1618-3169/a000538","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":12173,"journal":{"name":"Experimental psychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.3,"publicationDate":"2021-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"49265517","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：