Readings 1-4 Flashcards
What was the first experiment in the Chen and Proctor study?
Used up-down arrow keys to simulate a scrolling task, and to find the most ‘natural scrolling pattern’.
One block of trials used a compatible mapping (i.e. down arrow key to move the image down), and another block of trials used an incompatible mapping (i.e. up arrow key to move the image down).
What were the results of the first Chen and Proctor experiment?
RTs were faster when the content was moving in the direction of finger movement (i.e. down arrow key to move down).
What was the second experiment in the Chen and Proctor study?
A location judgement task. Participants used up and down arrow keys to respond to the location of an image.
One block of trials used a compatible mapping (i.e. down arrow key if the image was at the bottom of the screen), and another block of trials used an incompatible mapping (i.e. up arrow key if the image was at the bottom of the screen).
What were the results of the second Chen and Proctor experiment?
RTs were faster when the mappings were compatible (i.e. pressing up arrow when image was at the top of the screen).
Resulted in an opposite pattern to Experiment 1. Suggests that the scrolling component requires the finger movement to be consistent with the direction of the content movement, not the location of the content.
What is CDA?
Control-display alignment.
What was the objective of the Lee, Miles, and Vu experiment?
To determine how CDA affects response prevalence effects. Which CDA elicits a right-left prevalence? Which CDA elicits a top-bottom prevalence?
What were the results of the Lee, Miles, and Vu experiment?
Vertical CDA leads to a left-right prevalence. RTs are faster in the horizontal S-R dimension when the control panel was above or below (compatible mappings).
Horizontal CDA leads to a top-bottom prevalence. RTs are faster in the vertical S-R dimension when the control panel was right or left (compatible mappings).
What is an Eriksen flanker task?
Where irrelevant features of a task are separated from the relevant ones. Spatial and time distance of the flankers from the relevant feature can be easily manipulated.
What is the objective of the Falkenstein et. al study?
In response to flanker tasks, how do the LRPs of people with Parkinson’s disease differ from the LRPs of control subjects? How are activation and inhibition responses different in people with Parkinson’s disease?
In the Falkenstein et. al study, what was the difference between task 1 and task 2?
In task 1, the flankers were presented at the same time as the target.
In task 2, the flankers were shown 100ms before the target, and only congruent and incongruent mappings were used.
What were the results/conclusions from the Falkenstein study?
Patients with PD have reduced flanker induced conflict and resolution compared to the controls.
This is is conflict to previous research, which states that people with PD have enhanced responsiveness to distractions.
Why did the Duque et. al study focus on the left hand?
Because corticospinal suppression is more apparent in the non-dominant hand.
In the Duque et al study, what was the difference between experiments 1 and 2?
The precues were different. The first experiment included both unilateral and bilateral cues (R/L indication). The precues for the second experiment were always uninformative.
What did the 3rd experiment (Duque et al) entail?
It included MEP and H-reflex measurement at baseline and at the end of the delay period.
The task was wrist flexion, and the delay between the warning signal and go signal varied between 900 and 1200ms.
What were the results for experiment 1 (Duque et. al)?
There was MEP suppression at the end of the delay period. Suppression wasn’t enhanced in the left hand when it was indicated that the left hand was not involved in the movement.
