S1 (FriAM 1-65) - The Psychonomic Society

Saturday Afternoon Papers 217–222
University, & RÉMI GAUDREAULT, University of Laval (read by
Richard J. Schweickert)—Recent studies suggest that timing and executive
functions are closely related. Interference between timing and
one executive function, task switching, was examined in three experiments.
Memory search and a digit task (odd–even) were performed in
four conditions: search–search, search–digit, digit–search, and digit–
digit. In a control condition, participants provided RT responses in
each of the two tasks (T1 followed by T2). In a timing condition, participants
responded to T2 at the end of an interval production in which
T2 was interpolated (T1 followed by T2 concurrent with timing).
When responding in T2 required a task switch, RTs were longer but
produced intervals were unaffected. A dissociation was found in the
last experiment: Longer RTs were obtained (1) by increasing memory
load and (2) by task switching, whereas time productions were lengthened
by increasing memory load only, not by task switching. These
results suggest that timing is independent of task switching.
2:30–2:45 (217)
Temporal Contexts in Choice Response Time. TRISH VAN ZANDT
& MARI RIESS JONES, Ohio State University (read by Mari Riess
Jones)—The theory that a simple choice among N alternatives entails
the gradual accumulation of evidence over time is widely accepted
and consistent with recent neurophysiological studies. Although
mathematical models embracing this idea vary, all assume that evidence
accumulation can be represented as a stochastic process that
terminates when the level of accumulated evidence exceeds a fixed
criterion. Typically, a “front-end” signal detection theory offers parameters
based on stimulus factors that determine variability in the rates
of this accumulation process. We show that temporal properties of a
task context within an experiment can affect this accumulation
process. We present data indicating that subjects exploit task rhythm
to improve their performance. A diffusion model describes the choice
task, and an entrainment model (Large & Jones, 1999) describes modulation
of diffusion parameters. Together these two models can explain
some of the observed findings, including an elimination of a
speed–accuracy trade-off.
2:50–3:05 (218)
Movement Timing and Concurrent Working Memory Tasks: Effects
of Age and Musical Skill. RALF TH. KRAMPE, ANN LAVRYSEN,
& MIHALIS DOUMAS, University of Leuven—Multipurpose timing
mechanisms such as those underlying simple tapping are typically assumed
to operate autonomously and to be located in subcortical regions
(e.g., cerebellar or basal ganglia). From this perspective, interference
from cognitive tasks seems unlikely. We show, in contrast, that even
simple tapping suffers from simultaneous engagement in working
memory or executive control tasks. Under dual-task conditions participants
tend to play faster, more variable, and they show stronger trends.
In a study with children (8-, 10-, and 12-year-olds), young and older
adults, we demonstrate that dual-task costs show a U-shaped function
with age, even if cognitive demands are individually adjusted for. At the
same time, musical skill pertains a timing advantage that grows with
age from childhood to adulthood and remains stable until old age.
Language and Thought
Seaview, Saturday Afternoon, 1:30–3:10
Chaired by Alan W. Kersten, Florida Atlantic University
1:30–1:45 (219)
Attention to Manner of Motion in a Speeded Classification Task.
ALAN W. KERSTEN, SIMONE L. CHIN, & MONICA A. CEDENO,
Florida Atlantic University—Prior research demonstrates that speakers
of English, a language in which frequent reference is made to the
way a creature moves, attend more strongly to manner of motion under
some circumstances than do speakers of languages in which manner
of motion is less prominent. The present research examined whether
English speakers’ attention to manner of motion is limited to high-
34
level problem-solving tasks, in which explicit linguistic mediation is
likely, or whether it generalizes to a lower level, perceptually based
task. English speakers played a video game in which they shot down
enemy creatures while leaving friendly creatures unharmed. Participants
were given a perfectly valid color cue to classify the creatures.
Unbeknownst to participants, the manner of motion of a creature was
also strongly predictive. Participants were faster and more accurate at
shooting down enemy creatures that moved like prior enemy creatures,
even without conscious awareness of the manner of motion cue.
1:50–2:05 (220)
Mrs. Giraffe and Mr. Elephant: The Influence of Grammatical
Gender on German Speakers’ Inductive Reasoning in the Animal
Domain. HENRIK SAALBACH, ETH Zurich, MUTSUMI IMAI,
Keio University, & LENNART SCHALK, ETH Zurich (read by Mutsumi
Imai)—In German, grammatical gender assignment is independent
of the referent’s biological sex (e.g., even a male giraffe is grammatically
treated as feminine, and referred to by the female pronoun).
We examined whether grammatical gender affects German speakers’
inductive generalization of sex-specific biological properties by comparing
German- and Japanese-speaking children and adults. The
grammatical gender contributed more strongly than the animal’s typicality
for predicting German 5-year-olds’ willingness to generalize
the sex-specific property to the target animal, while they drew inductive
inference about non-sex-specific biological properties in accord
with typicality. Japanese children’s willingness to make inductive generalization
is only determined by typicality of the target animal both
for the sex-specific and non-sex-specific properties. Grammatical
gender also influenced German adults’ inductive inference of sexspecific
biological properties though in a more subtle way than children.
We discuss how grammatical gender interacts with universal
constraints in German speakers’ inductive inference about sexspecific
and nonspecific properties.
2:10–2:25 (221)
Do English and Mandarin Speakers Think Differently About Time?
LERA BORODITSKY, Stanford University—Do the languages we
speak shape the way we think? Some previous work demonstrated that
speakers of English and Mandarin think about time differently. This
work has recently been brought into question. Here I present new evidence
that once again demonstrates a difference between English and
Mandarin speakers’ construals of time. Both languages use horizontal
and vertical spatial language to talk about time. For example, in
English we might say that the best is ahead of us, or we may move a
meeting up. In English, vertical metaphors are relatively infrequent
and horizontal metaphors predominate. In Mandarin, both horizontal
and vertical metaphors are frequent. Importantly, vertical metaphors
are much more frequent in Mandarin than they are in English. Here I
present evidence that Mandarin speakers don’t just talk about time
vertically more frequently than English speakers; they also think
about time vertically more frequently than do English speakers.
2:30–2:45 (222)
Distinguishing Facts From Opinions: A Cross-Cultural Comparison.
JING FENG & MITCHELL RABINOWITZ, Fordham University
(read by Mitchell Rabinowitz)—What features do people use to distinguish
facts from opinions? Last year we presented data that suggested
that people consider a fact to be something that you believe and
think others would also judge it to be true; an opinion is something
that you think might or might not be true and others may or may not
agree with it. We found that people used these features when discriminating
between statements taken from general knowledge and
from a newspaper article. We also found that while there was consensus
as to what the features were that distinguishes a fact from an
opinion, there was little consensus as to what actually was a fact or an
opinion. The purpose of the present study was to assess whether this
pattern of results generalizes across cultures (American vs. Chinese)
and with varying content.