Scholarly Work - Psychology
Permanent URI for this collectionhttps://scholarworks.montana.edu/handle/1/3455
Browse
4 results
Search Results
Item Once established, goal reminders provide long-lasting and cumulative benefits for lower working memory capacity individuals.(American Psychological Association, 2022-12) Hood, Audrey V. B.; Charbonneau, Brooke; Hutchison, Keith A.Previous research has shown that Stroop effects interact with working memory capacity (WMC) more strongly with lists of mostly congruent items. Although the predominant explanation for this relationship is goal maintenance, some research has challenged whether listwide effects truly reflect goal-maintenance abilities. The current study improved upon previous methodology by using both within-subject and between-subjects manipulations of goal reminder, increasing both the number of trials between reminders and the total length of the task to allow for greater goal neglect, and more precisely maintaining congruency proportion within each block. Participants completed the Automated Operation Span followed by a Stroop task in which they stopped every 24 trials to vocalize either a goal-reminder statement (“name the color not the word”) or a nongoal statement (“This is part of my intro to psychology class”). In the within-subject manipulation (Experiment 1), there was no consistent benefit for goal reminders over nongoal statements. However, in the between-subjects manipulation (Experiment 2), results demonstrated a strong benefit of goal reminders, such that goal reminders eliminated the relation between WMC and Stroop effects, whereas that relation was robust following nongoal statements. Moreover, the benefit of receiving goal reminders lasted for at least 24 trials and accumulated across the course of the experiment. These data provide strong evidence that goal reminders eliminate the relationship between WMC and Stroop errors and suggest goal reminders can be a useful intervention for those suffering from lapses in controlled attention. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)Item Patience is a virtue: Individual differences in cue-evoked pupil responses under temporal certainty(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2022-04) Hood, Audrey V. B.; Hart, Katherine M.; Marchak, Frank M.; Hutchison, Keith A.Attention control is often examined behaviorally by measuring task performance and self-reported mind wandering. However, recent studies have also used pupillometry to measure task engagement versus task disengagement/mind wandering. In the current study, we investigated participants’ ability to engage versus relax attention control in anticipation of hard (antisaccade) versus easy (prosaccade) trials within a saccade task, creating a “Cue-Evoked” Pupillary Response (CEPR). Participants completed the Automated OSPAN as a measure of working memory capacity (WMC) followed by a saccade task with a constant 5000 ms delay between cue and stimulus. Occasional thought-probes were included to gauge on- versus off-task attentional state. Consistent with recent findings (Hutchison et al., 2020; Wang et al., 2015), we found better performance and more Task-Unrelated Thoughts (TUTs) on prosaccade trials, larger pupil diameters when preparing for antisaccade trials, and larger pupil diameters when on-task. Further, lower WMC individuals showed pupil dilation throughout the fixation delay for both types of trials, whereas higher WMC individuals only showed dilation immediately before stimulus onset when expecting an antisaccade trial. Saccade accuracy was predicted by WMC, smaller early CEPR, larger late CEPR, and less CEPR variability, but not self-reported TUTs. These findings demonstrate that, under temporal certainty, higher WMC individuals may be more efficient in their exertion of attention control. Further, they indicate that physiological measures can not only validate self-report measures, but also help identify situations in which self-report may be.Item Once established, goal reminders provide long-lasting and cumulative benefits for lower working memory capacity individuals.(American Psychological Association, 2022-10) Hood, Audrey V. B.; Charbonneau, Brooke; Hutchison, Keith A.Previous research has shown that Stroop effects interact with working memory capacity (WMC) more strongly with lists of mostly congruent items. Although the predominant explanation for this relationship is goal maintenance, some research has challenged whether listwide effects truly reflect goal-maintenance abilities. The current study improved upon previous methodology by using both within-subject and between-subjects manipulations of goal reminder, increasing both the number of trials between reminders and the total length of the task to allow for greater goal neglect, and more precisely maintaining congruency proportion within each block. Participants completed the Automated Operation Span followed by a Stroop task in which they stopped every 24 trials to vocalize either a goal-reminder statement (“name the color not the word”) or a nongoal statement (“This is part of my intro to psychology class”). In the within-subject manipulation (Experiment 1), there was no consistent benefit for goal reminders over nongoal statements. However, in the between-subjects manipulation (Experiment 2), results demonstrated a strong benefit of goal reminders, such that goal reminders eliminated the relation between WMC and Stroop effects, whereas that relation was robust following nongoal statements. Moreover, the benefit of receiving goal reminders lasted for at least 24 trials and accumulated across the course of the experiment. These data provide strong evidence that goal reminders eliminate the relationship between WMC and Stroop errors and suggest goal reminders can be a useful intervention for those suffering from lapses in controlled attention. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved)Item Providing goal reminders eliminates the relationship between working memory capacity and Stroop errors(Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2020-11) Hood, Audrey V. B.; Hutchison, Keith A.Previous research has shown that list-wide effects in the Stroop task interact with working memory capacity (WMC). The predominant explanation for this relationship is goal maintenance. However, some researchers have challenged whether list-wide effects truly reflect goal-maintenance abilities. In the current study, we examined whether goal maintenance explains higher WMC individuals’ better performance within mostly congruent (MC) Stroop lists by providing periodic goal reminders to some of the participants. Two hundred and twelve participants from Montana State University first completed the Automated Operation Span and were then assigned to either a true control, goal reminder, or nongoal reminder condition. During the Stroop task, the true control condition received rest breaks every 60 trials, whereas the goal reminder and nongoal reminder conditions stopped every 12 trials to vocalize either the task goal or a rehearsed statement, respectively. We regressed Stroop errors on reminder condition and WMC, comparing each group to the true control. For the Goal Reminder × True Control comparison, there was an interaction, such that WMC negatively correlated with Stroop errors in the true control, but not in the goal reminder condition. In contrast, for the Nongoal Reminder × True Control comparison, there was only an overall effect of WMC, with greater Stroop errors for those lower in WMC. These data provide evidence that goal reminders eliminate the relationship between WMC and Stroop interference.