S1 (FriAM 1-65) - The Psychonomic Society

Posters 4083–4089 Saturday Noon
(4083)
On the Use of Signal Detection Models in Contrasting Yes–No and
Forced-Choice Discrimination. MOSES M. LANGLEY, Iowa State
University (sponsored by Robert West)—Signal detection (SD) models
predict the superiority of two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC)
detection over yes–no (YN) detection by a factor of √2. Thus, to make
balanced comparisons between performances in these tasks, the equation
for estimating 2AFC detection performance involves a division
by √2. Although the detection literature provides a long and consistent
history of confirmation for this prediction (Wickelgren, 1968),
the prediction often fails when extended to discrimination tasks
(Creelman & Macmillan, 1979). Nevertheless, SD models have been
widely used to contrast discrimination in YN and 2AFC tasks. The
present experiments explicitly examined the √2 prediction under theoretically
ideal conditions for the use of SD models in discrimination
estimation; the √2 prediction was generally unsupported for both the
equal-variance and the unequal-variance SD model. These results
challenge prior assertions that SD model estimates are the appropriate
means for contrasting YN and 2AFC discrimination.
(4084)
Some-or-None Recollection in Recognition Memory: Evidence From
Conjoint Modeling of Item and Source Information. SERGE V.
ONYPER, St. Lawrence University, & MARC W. HOWARD, Syracuse
University—Recent years have seen the development of consensus
that recognition memory is subserved by familiarity and a recall-like
recollection process. However, considerable debate still exists about
the form of the recollection process and the relationship between recollection
and familiarity. Evidence from conjoint judgments of item
and source information shows curvilinear source ROCs when conditionalized
on item confidence. This finding has been taken as evidence
against a two-process account (e.g., Slotnick & Dodson, 2005).
We conducted an experiment in which subjects rated both confidence
and source for words or pictures. We successfully fit a dual-process
model with some-or-none recollection simultaneously to the item and
source data. This variable recollection model postulates that recollection
is a continuous process, but that it also exhibits threshold behavior
(see also DeCarlo, 2002, 2003). This model approximates
single-process accounts and all-or-none dual-process accounts as limiting
cases and should provide a general framework for describing
recognition performance across a wide variety of circumstances.
(4085)
Using Factors Selectively Influencing Processes to Construct a
Multinomial Processing Tree. SHENGBAO CHEN, JMW Truss, &
RICHARD J. SCHWEICKERT, Purdue University (sponsored by
Richard J. Schweickert)—Data often indicate that manipulating an experimental
factor changed a single probability in a multinomial processing
tree, evidence that the factor selectively influenced a process.
(Such evidence often arises when the process dissociation procedure
is used.) A systematic way is presented to test whether two experimental
factors each selectively influenced a different process in a
multinomial processing tree; and, if so, to construct a multinomial
processing tree accounting for the data. We show that if the data were
produced by any underlying multinomial processing tree, there is an
equivalent relatively simple tree. The equivalent tree must have one
of two forms. In one form, the selectively influenced processes are sequential;
in the other, they are not sequential. If the processes are sequential,
the data sometimes indicate the order in which they were
executed.
• DEPTH AND MOVEMENT PERCEPTION •
(4086)
Induced Motion Effects in a Target Throwing Task. CRYSTAL D.
OBERLE, JOANNA M. BAUGH, & HEIDI S. LOVEJOY, Texas State
University—Computerized induced motion experiments have revealed
that target pointing is less affected than perceptual judgments (Abrams
117
& Landgraf, 1990; Post & Welch, 2004) or is completely immune to
the illusory motion (Bridgeman et al., 1981; Rival et al., 2004). The
present research investigated the effects of background motion on
throwing performance. Forty participants completed 50 trials of a target
throwing task, 10 for each of the following motion background conditions:
none, rightward, leftward, upward, and downward. Although
condition did not affect vertical deviation from the target’s center
[F(4,156) = 2.51, p = .06], it did affect horizontal deviation [F(4,156) =
6.01, p = .0002]. Planned comparisons revealed that only performance
in the rightward and leftward motion background conditions differed
from performance in the no-motion background condition. Relative to
the latter control trials, rightward background motion caused leftward
throwing errors, and leftward background motion caused rightward
throwing errors, consistent with the induced motion effect.
(4087)
Effects of Motion Type and Response Method on Representational
Momentum in a Large Visual Display. SUSAN E. RUPPEL, University
of South Carolina Upstate, & TIMOTHY L. HUBBARD, Texas
Christian University—Effects of motion type (i.e., whether motion appears
continuous or implied) and response type (pointing, probe judgment)
on memory for the final location of a moving target (representational
momentum; RM) have been debated. Also, displays in
previous studies of RM typically subsumed a relatively small portion
of observers’ visual fields, and it is possible that visual information
outside the boundaries of the display anchored (or otherwise influenced)
observers’ judgments. The present study presented continuous
motion and implied motion, and used natural pointing, mouse pointing,
and probe judgment response measures. Motion was displayed on
a Smartboard touchscreen (77-in. diagonal) that subsumed a relatively
large portion of observers’ visual fields. RM was not influenced by
motion type; RM was larger with mouse pointing and natural pointing
when continuous motion was presented, whereas RM was larger
with mouse pointing and probe judgment when implied motion was
presented. Implications for theories of RM are discussed.
(4088)
Visual Perception of Self-Rotation in a Virtual Environment.
ANDREAS E. FINKELMEYER & MARC M. SEBRECHTS, Catholic
University of America (sponsored by James H. Howard, Jr.)—In three
experiments, we investigated the ability of human observers to indicate
the amount of a previously presented self-rotation in a virtual environment.
Experiment 1 compared active–physical rotations with
passive–visual rotation modes. Experiment 2 investigated the influence
of the horizontal and vertical field-of-view (FOV), and Experiment
3 compared conditions of mismatching physical and rendering
FOV. In all three experiments, observers gave their judgment by rotating
back to the start, or pointing to it. Observers generally underestimated
the amount of performed rotation, and had increasing errors
with larger angles. Response mode had the largest effect on these errors:
Judgments were less biased and more accurate when rotating
back than when pointing, suggesting different cognitive processes for
the two response modes. Despite dramatic differences in appearance,
movement mode (Experiment 1) and FOV manipulations (Experiments
2 and 3) had relatively smaller effects on the observers’ judgments,
primarily in the form of interactions.
(4089)
Biomechanical Capture in Rotational Locomotion. HUGO BRUGGE-
MAN, Brown University, & HERBERT L. PICK, JR., University of
Minnesota—In human terrestrial locomotion, activation of the inertial
system is causally related to self-generated activity of the biomechanical
system. The biomechanical information has been proven to
be dominant in guiding terrestrial locomotion without vision or hearing.
However, we wanted to know whether such biomechanical capture
of guidance might still be influenced by the inertial information
from stepping. In a series of three experiments, participants completed
updating tasks of spatial rotation for several different conditions of