Participants who were unable to detect familiarity from masked 17 ms faces did report a vague, partial visual percept. Two experiments investigated the relative strength of the visual percept generated by famous and unfamiliar faces, using masked 17 ms exposure. Each trial presented simultaneously a famous and an unfamiliar face, one face in LVF and the other in RVF. In one task, participants responded according to which of the faces generated the stronger visual percept, and in the other task, they (...) attempted an explicit familiarity decision. The relative strength of the visual percept of the famous face compared to the unfamiliar face was moderated by response latency and participants’ attitude towards the famous person. There was also an interaction of visual field with response latency, suggesting that the right hemisphere can generate a visual percept differentiating famous from unfamiliar faces more rapidly than the left hemisphere. Participants were at chance in the explicit familiarity decision, confirming the absence of awareness of facial familiarity. (shrink)

Stone and Valentine presented masked 17 ms faces in simultaneous pairs of one famous and one unfamiliar face. Accuracy in selecting the famous face was higher when the famous person was regarded as “good” or liked than when regarded as “evil” or disliked. Experiment 1 attempted to replicate this phenomenon, but produced a different pattern of results. Experiment 2 investigated alternative explanations and found evidence supporting only the effect of response latency: responses made soon after stimulus onset were more (...) accurate to liked than to disliked faces, whereas responses made after a longer delay were equally accurate to disliked faces. It appears that the effect of negative valence was corrected within the space of a few hundred milliseconds. Experiment 3, using an affective priming paradigm, supported the concept that an early-arising effect of valence is corrected if it is misleading to the directed task. (shrink)

The WEAVER ++ model discussed by Levelt et al. assumes incremental encoding and articulation following complete encoding. However, many of the response latency results can also be accounted for by assuming incremental articulation. Another temporal variable, initial segment duration, can distinguish WEAVER ++'s incremental encoding account from the incremental articulation account.

Are incorrect judgments on false belief tasks better explained within the framework of a conceptual change theory or a bias theory? Conceptual change theory posits a change in the form of reasoning from 3 to 4 years old while bias theory posits that processing factors are responsible for errors among younger children. The results from three experiments showed that children who failed a test of false belief took as long to respond as those who passed, and both groups of children (...) took longer to respond to belief questions than to questions about prior states of reality. These results seem to support the bias theory. (shrink)

: Are incorrect judgments on false belief tasks better explained within the framework of a conceptual change theory or a bias theory? Conceptual change theory posits a change in the form of reasoning from 3 to 4 years old while bias theory posits that processing factors are responsible for errors among younger children. The results from three experiments showed that children who failed a test of false belief took as long to respond as those who passed, and both groups of (...) children took longer to respond to belief questions than to questions about prior states of reality. These results seem to support the bias theory. (shrink)

Cognitive and biological theories of emotion consider surprise as an emotional response to unexpected events. Four experiments examined the latency and the duration of one behavioural component of surprise: The interruption of ongoing action. Participants were presented with an unannounced visual event—the appearance of new perceptual objects—during the execution of a continuous action—a rapid alternate finger tapping—which allowed a precise measurement of the latency, and the duration of an action interruption induced by the surprising event. Of the participants, 78% (...) interrupted the tapping with a mean latency of 214 ms and a mean duration of 995 ms. Variations of the number and perceptual heterogeneity of the new objects revealed that the perceptual analysis of the surprising event contributes significantly to the interruption duration. (shrink)

The central nervous system uses feedback processes that occur at multiple time scales to control interactions with the environment. The long-latency response is the fastest process that directly involves cortical areas, with a motoneuron response measurable 50 ms following an imposed limb displacement. Several behavioral factors concerning perturbation mechanics and the active role of muscles prior or during the perturbation can modulate the long-latency response amplitude in the upper limbs, but the interactions among many of these factors (...) had not been systematically studied before. We conducted a behavioral study on thirteen healthy individuals to determine the effect and interaction of four behavioral factors – background muscle torque, perturbation direction, perturbation velocity, and task instruction – on the LLRa evoked from the flexor carpi radialis and extensor carpi ulnaris muscles after velocity-controlled wrist displacements. The effects of the four factors were quantified using both a 0D statistical analysis on the average perturbation-evoked EMG signal in the period corresponding to an LLR, and using a timeseries analysis of EMG signals. All factors significantly modulated LLRa, and their combination nonlinearly contributed to modulating the LLRa. Specifically, all the three-way interaction terms that could be computed without including the interaction between instruction and velocity significantly modulated the LLR. Analysis of the three-way interaction terms of the 0D model indicated that for the ECU muscle, the LLRa evoked when subjects are asked to maintain their muscle activation in response to the perturbations was greater than the one observed when subjects yielded to the perturbations, but this effect was not measured for muscles undergoing shortening or in absence of background muscle activation. Moreover, higher perturbation velocity increased the LLRa evoked from the stretched muscle in presence of a background torque, but no effects of velocity were measured in absence of background torque. Also, our analysis identified significant modulations of LLRa in muscles shortened by the perturbation, including an interaction between torque and velocity, and an effect of both torque and velocity. The time-series analysis indicated the significance of additional transient effects in the LLR region for muscles undergoing shortening. (shrink)