Modification of the acoustic and cutaneous blink reflexes by focussed attention

MISSING IMAGE

Material Information

Title:
Modification of the acoustic and cutaneous blink reflexes by focussed attention
Physical Description:
v, 109 leaves : ill. ; 28 cm.
Language:
English
Creator:
Haerich, Paul
Publication Date:

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Startle reaction   ( lcsh )
Eyelid conditioning   ( lcsh )
Psychology thesis Ph. D
Dissertations, Academic -- Psychology -- UF
Genre:
bibliography   ( marcgt )
non-fiction   ( marcgt )

Notes

Thesis:
Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Florida, 1989.
Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical refrences (leaves 104-107)
Statement of Responsibility:
by Paul Haerich.
General Note:
Typescript.
General Note:
Vita.

Record Information

Source Institution:
University of Florida
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
aleph - 001518346
oclc - 21996792
notis - AHD1473
System ID:
AA00002123:00001

Full Text










MODIFICATION OF THE ACOUSTIC
BLINK REFLEXES BY FOCUSED


PAUL


AND CUTANEOUS
ATTENTION


HAERICH


A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY


UNIVERSITY


OF FLORIDA














ACKNOWLEDGMENTS


Thanks


gratitude


are


due


many


people.


particular,


Lisa


Garner,


Lynn


McClung,


Kathy


Shoucair


, and


Frank

data.


Whorto

Dawn


provided


Bowers,


many


Betty


hours


Capaldi,


of help


collecting


Fischler,


Peter


Lang,


and


Stehouwer,


acting


as my supervisory


committee,


carrying


provided


of this


sage


advice


research.


the


Bob


planning


Donohue


kept


and


things


around


the


from


becoming


boring-


-not


to mention


his


skill


keeping


equipment


functioning.


Especial


thanks


are


due


to W


. Keith


Berg


his


concern,


counsel,


wisdom,


insight,


and


tolerance.


impossible


budding


scientist


imagine


a better


role


model
















TABLE OF CONTENTS




page

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS........................................ ii

ABSTRACT. . . . . . . . . . . iv


INTRODUCTION.............. ................ .........

Previous Research.................... ..............
Hypothetical Prospectus..............................


EXPERIMENT


Method. . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Results...... . . . . ...... ............... 27


EXPERIMENT II........................................ 40
M eth od ...... .............................. ....... 44

Results.............................................. 46
Discussion........................................... 56

CONCLUSION. . .. .. .. . . . . .. . .. . .. 65

APPENDIX A: DATA: MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS...... 70

APPENDIX B: EXPERIMENT II: GROUP BY GROUP RESULTS..... 80

REFERENCES......... ........ .......... ............... 104

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.................................... 108


I. . . . . . . . . . . .














Abstract


the


of Dissertation


University


of Florida


Requirements


Degree


Presented


the


in Partial


of Doctor


Graduate


School


Fulfillment


of Philosophy


MODIFICATION


BLINK


OF THE


REFLEXES


ACOUSTIC


BY FOCUSED


AND


CUTANEOUS


ATTENTION


PAUL HAERICH

AUGUST 1989


Chairman:


Major


. Keith


Department:


Berg
Psychology


The


reflex


blink


been


used


to study


a wide


range


of psychological


phenomena,


among


them


selective


attention.


Previous


research


typically


has


found


that


when


sensory


modality


to which


attention


directed


and


that


the


eliciting


stimulus


match,


the


reflex


potentiated


compared


with


a condition


which


they


mismatch.


A recent


study


found


oppos


ite;


when


the


sensory


modalities


acoustic


eliciting


stimulus


and


the


focus


of attention


matched


the


reflex


blink


was


smaller


than


the


mismatch


condition.

seemingly


Four hypotheses

anomalous finding


were

and


proposed


two


to explain


experiments


this


were


carried


was


test


manipulated


them.


requiring


In both


subjects


experiments,


attention


to discriminate


the


- *


_ _








warning


stimulus


presented


shortly


before


blink


eliciting


stimuli


on 80%


of trials


was


found


to potentiate


reflex


blinks


regard


ess


of whether


the


blink


stimulus


was


task-


relevant


or not.


Additionally,


reflex


amplitude


both


stimulus


types


was


further


potentiated


when


subjects


were


judging


airpuff


stimuli.


Thus,


the


apparently


anomalous


result


the


earlier


experiment


was


replicated,


appearing


as a relatively


greater


warning


potentiation


responses

response


subjects


noise


facilitation


' generalized


the


attend-puff


on warned


attention


trials


toward


condition.

results f


sensory


The


:rom


inputs.


further


potentiation


produced


the


puff


task


was


inconsistent


with


hypotheses


based


on differential


habituation,


on puff-induced


response


sensitization,


or on


inhibition


of the


interference


produced


responding


during


the


task.


Explanations


the


facilitation


increa


task


negative


difficulty


affect


that


when


condition


judging


were


airpuffs


also


or greater


considered


unlikely.


The


response


potentiation


produced


the


judge-


puff


condition


appears


to reflect


an intrinsic


cognitive


difference


cutaneous--as


processing


opposed


task-relevant


to the


information


auditory--sensory


from


channel.















INTRODUCTION


The


reflex


blink


may


be elicited


human


subjects


stimuli


occurring


in a number


sensory


modalities


may


be elicited


acoustic


stimulation


as the


most


res


ilient


part


the


acoustic


startle


response


(Landis


Hunt,


1939),


visual


stimuli,


and


periorbital


cutaneous


stimuli


blink,


Shahani


various


Young,


sensory


inputs


1973).


In producing


converge


in the


ponto-medullary


reticular


formation


(Rimpel,


Geyer,


Hopf,


1982)


before


following


a common


final


path


from


facial


nucleus


via


the


facial


nerve


the


muscle,


orbicularis


oculi,


which


is used


blinking.


The


reflex


blink


has been


used


as a dependent


measure


in inves


tigations


of a wide


range


topics


, including


conditioning


, Cook,


Hodes,


& Lang


1986;


Greenwald


Hamm


, Bradley,


& Lang


, 1988;


Spence,


1966;


Spence


& Platt,


1966)


affect


(Bradley,


Cuthbert,


Lang,


1989;


Cook


al.,


1986;


Lang,


Bradley


& Cuthb


ert,


1989)


, perceptual


thresholds


and


sensory


processing


(Haerich,


Woods


Berg


1989;


Woods


Haerich,


1989;


Hoffman,


1984),


inter


alia.









Kuypers,


1978)


as have


those


in the


acoustic


startle


response


(Davis


, 1984)


Elicited


stimulation


multiple


sensory


channel


, consisting


of known


neural


circuitry


useful


inves


tigations


of a number


psychologically


interesting


topics


, the


blink


reflex


has


shown


self


a power


research


tool.


Noting


differing


effects


of various


interstimulus


intervals


(ISIs)


when


the


reflex


eliciting


stimulus


preceded


a weak


lead


stimulus,


Graham


(1975)


suggested


that


refl


might


be modifiable


selective


attention


compared


. Subsequent


with


res


blinks


earch


cited


suggested


without


that


attention


, when


being


manipulated


(i.e


. without


warning)


the


response


was


potentiated


attention


was


directed


toward


the


modality


which


the


startling


stimulus


was


presented


(Bohlin


Graham,


1977;


Ison


& Ashkenazi,


1980)


and


was


inhibited


attention


was


directed


toward


another


sensory


modality


Silverstein,


Graham,


& Bohlin,


1980)


the


between


work


reflexes


cited


evoked


above,


after


comparisons


a warning


were


stimulus


made


cued


subjects


attention


toward


a certain


sensory


modality


Since


the


blink


response


may


be elicited


stimuli


multiple


sensory


channel


response


system


also


allows


assessment


of attentional


effects


in a complete









using


visual


and


acoustic


stimuli,


has


produced


both


the


facil itatory


and


inhibitory


attention


effects


described


above


using


both


infant


subj ects


(Anthony


Graham,


1983)


adults


(Anthony


Graham,


1985).


Previous


Research


A brief


review


of earlier


studies


which


elicited


reflex


blinking


while


directing


attention


both


toward


and


away


from


the


eliciting


stimulus


will


helpful


contextuali


zing


the


current


research.


Bohlin


and


Graham


(1977)


asked


subjects


discriminate


durations


(long/short)


of startling


acoustic


(tones,


noise)


stimuli.


For


both


types


eliciting


stimuli,


blinks


were


facilitated


on warned


compared


were


with


reported


unwarned


Bohlin,


controll t

Graham,


rial


Similar


Silverstein,


results


and


Hackley


(1981)


who


elicited


reflex


blinks


with


bursts


of white


noise


on both


warned


unwarned


trials


in a series


experiments.


modality


The


the


critical


lead


stimulus


stimulus;


manipulation


was


experiments,


each


block


seven


trials


included


five


trials


warned


vibrotactile


lead


stimulus,


one


unwarned


trial,


and


one


trial


on which


the


lead


stimulus


was


either


acoustic


visual.


one


experiment,


the


critical


acoustic









facilitated


comparison


with


the


blinks


on the


just-as-


frequent


were


unwarned


instructed


trials.


to judge


In another


duration


experiment,


the


subjects


eliciting


stimulus

acoustic


only


on those,


or visual


lead


infrequent,


trials


stimuli.


the


which


used


earlier


study


(Bohlin


Graham,


1977),


blinks


were


larger


on the


critical,


judgment


trials


than


either


the


unwarned


trials


or the


non-judgment


trials.


A final


experiment


in which


subjects


were


told


only


to "attend"


infrequent


lead


stimulus,


but


performed


no task,


found


no differences


blink


amplitude


between


trial


types.


Two


results


importance


are


indicated


these


studies.


First,


when


subjects

responses


are

are


attending to

facilitated.


a task-relevant


Secondly,


stimulus


a similar


facilitation


subjects


may


direct


be produced


their


during


attention


orienting


sensory


when


inputs


general.


Silverstein


et al.


(1981)


directed


subjects


to judge


duration


an electrotactile


(forearm)


stimulus


while


simultaneously


presenting


a blink-eli


citing


acoustic


stimulus.


Blinks


elicited


on warned


trials


were


inhibited


with


respect


to blinks


elicited


without


warning.


These


data


indicated


that


inhibition


resulted


when


blinks


were


elicited


a stimulus


in a sensory


modality


which


did


not









inhibitory


effects


of attention.


In each


experiment


the


subjects


were


divided


into


two


groups


and


presented


with


relatively


engaging


(that


intere


sting)


foreground


stimulus,

stimuli w


or one


rere


intended


so engaging

to direct


(dull).


the


These


attention


foreground

the


subject


toward


a particular


sensory


modality,


the


interesting


foregrounds


being


more


effective


than


dull


foregrounds.


For


one


group


these


two


types


of foreground


stimuli


were


visual


(e.g.,


infants,


color


slides


smiling


faces


versus


blank


color


slides),


and


the


other

tunes


acoustic

versus a


foregrounds


1000


were


tone).


used


Four


(e.g.,


second


music

after


box

onset


foreground


stimulus,


a startle


response


was


elicited


a stimulus


which


either


matched


or did


not


match


that


of the

startle


foreground

eliciting


reflexes


were


stimulus.

stimulus


When

matched


potentiated,


more


the m

that


odality


the


so when


foreground,


attention


was


engaged


an interesting


foreground.


Further,


when


foreground


startle


stimuli


were


mismatched,


with


attention


being


actively


directed


toward


a different


modality


interesting


foreground),


the


reflex


amplitude


was


inhibited


as compared


to reflexes


elicited


after


either


were


the


also


dull


facilitated


foreground


when


stimuli.


foreground


Reflex


stimuli


latencies


and









Typically,


research


on attention


and


the


reflex


blink


used


acoustic


stimuli


to elicit


the


response.


Hackley


Graham


(1983)


used


both


acoustic


airpuff


st imuli


an attempt


results


to extend


of previous


the


work


cutaneous


blink


modality


modification


manipulating


selective


attention.


the


first


experiment,


a startle-eliciting


acoustic


stimulus


was


paired


with


a non-startling


airpuff


which


was


simultaneously


delivered


the


third


digit


of the


left


hand.


Subjects


were


required


to judge


the


durations


either

were i


acoustic


instructed


or airpuff


stimuli


to concentrate


on the


(short


task


or long)

stimulus


and

and


ignore


the


other,


distracting


stimulus.


After


trials,


subjects


required


to attend


acoustic


and


ignore


airpuff


stimuli


continued


an additional


36 trials


with


the


attend


and


ignore


stimuli


reversed.


This


ordering


was


counter


balanced


across


subjects.


The


second


experiment,


conducted


with


a different


group


of subjects,


was


identical


first


except


that


the


reflex


eliciting


stimulus


was


a periorbital


airpuff


which


was


paired


with


non-startling


acoustic


stimulus.


For


both


experiments


magnitude


the


blink


and


latency


were


facilitated


when


attention


was


directed


toward


the


modality


of the


startling


stimulus


as compared


an attend-away









A further


attempt


to elicit


significant


attentional


effects


with


cutaneous


stimuli


was


made


Haerich


(1988).


Stimuli,


binaurally


presented


noise


bursts


and


periorbital


airpuffs,


were


presented


individually


so that,


on a given


trial,


subjects


could


receive


either


stimulus


type.


Hackley


and


Graham


study


(1983) ,


a duration


discrimination


task


was


used


to direct


subjects


' attention


toward


or away


from


a given


stimulus


modality.


The


task-


relevant


stimulus


irrelevant


elicited

because


always


stimulus.


responding


of the


was


potency


occurred

In this

driven un


twice


as frequently


experiment,


wittingly


airpuff


cutaneously


to ceiling


stimulus.


Acoustically


elicited


responses


did


vary,


but


direction


opposite


that


observed


Graham


and


her


colleagues


(Anthony


Graham,


1983,


1985;


Hackley


Graham,


1983).


That


noise


induced


blinks


elicited


while


subjects


were


judging


noise


durations


(i.e.


the


attend-toward


elicited


condition)


the


were


judge-puff


inhibited


(attend-away)


relative


condition.


those

The


focus


the


pres
rlr'Qs


research


examine


reasons


unexpected


finding


the


Haerich


(1988)


study.


Hyvothetical


Prospectus


A number


of explanations


may


be advanced


the









generalized


orienting


the


subjects


which


could,


turn,


have


produced


larger


responses


under


a more


difficult


task


condition


(Bohlin


Graham,


1977;


Bohlin


al.,


1981)


Subject


reports


that


airpuff


discrimination


took


more


effort


suggest


that


subjects


instructed


to attend


to airpuffs


may


have


shown


a stronger


orienting


response


than


when


attending


noise


suggestion


supported


(non-significant)


greater


heart


rate


deceleration


just


prior


the


eliciting


stimulus


attend-puff


condition).


this


way,


responses


acoustic


stimuli


the


attend


airpuff


condition


would


relatively


larger


than


the


attend-noise


condition.


Apparently,


observed


response


Haerich


differences


because


to airpuff


the


stimuli


intensity


were


the


stimuli


was


so great


as to produce


ceiling


effects.


Were


the


ceiling


effects


avoided,


this


hypothesis


would


predict


that


puff


elicited


responses


would


have


been


influenced


the


same


direction


as the


noise


elicited


ones;


that


attend-puff


blinks


would


have


been


enhanced


relative


to attend-noise


blinks.


(See


Figure


summary


of predictions


this


and


the


following


hypotheses


This


hypothe


does


not


propose


an effect


specific


to a single


eliciting


modality,


but


rather,


one


which


results


from


focussing


of attention


and


occurs


















Figure


Hypothesis Predictions. Predicted response
patterns for each of the four hypotheses. The
predictions apply for Experiments I and
Experiment II, group one.













stimulus


noise


received

airpuff


hypotheses
. attention:
attend-p uff
potentiation



attention:
interference
inhibition


habituation




response
sensitization


judge
puff


Task









specific


effects


suggests


that


the


physical


expression


blink


reflex


could


interfere


with


required


duration


j udgement


regardless


modality


stimulation


, and


as a result,


subject


s optimal


task


performance


would


require


minimize


that


interference


inhibiting


inhibition


blink.


activity


locus


this


a modality


interference


specific,


central


pathway.

selective


This


hypothes


attention


which


predicts


are


effects


apparently


associated


contrary


with


to those


observed


previous


researchers


g.,Anthony


& Graham


1983,


1985;


Hackley


& Graham,


1983)


The


conflict


may


clarified


taking


into


account


differences


between


the


experimental


contexts


faced


subj ects


in the


Haerich


(1988)


study


and


subjects


the


earlier


Hackley


and


Graham

stimulu


work.

s from


When

only


one


a given

modality


subj ect,


used


a blink-eli


occurring


citing


on all


trials


was


the


case


Hackley


Graham,


1983),


interf


erence


effects


from


the


reflex


blink


should


equivalent


under


both


attend-toward


and


attend-away


conditions


since


task


must


be carried


out


in both


cases.


This


constant


influence


would


allow


the


independent


facilitatory


effects


of attention/


stimulus


modality


matching


appear.


When


the


blink


stimulus


may


be presented


either


two


modalities


on a given


trial,









presented


that


task-relevant,


no reduction


interference


is required,


since


there


is no task


to be


carried


out.


Thus,


in this


situation


inhibition


effects


would


be distributed


across


stimuli


attentional


conditions


an equivalent


manner;


rather,


this


hypothesis


predicts


that


subj ects


could


effectively


reduce


interference


inhibiting


responses


in the


task-relevant


stimulus


alone,


thus


producing


the


reported


results.


This


hypothesis


differs


from


st in


prediction


that,


were


ceiling


effects


on puff-elic


ited


blinks


avoided,


responses


would


show


a modality


specific


effect


attentional


condition


condition


being


with


inhibited


blinks

relative


to the


attend-puff

attend-noise


condition


(figure


hypothesis


In addition


these


two


hypotheses


which


were


advanced


Haerich


(1988),


a third


alternative


suggests


that


the


results


of Haeri


(1988)


reflect


differential


habituation.


more


leading


Since


frequently,


to the


the


greater


results


task-relevant

habituation


seen


stimulus


would


acoustically


occurred


be expected


elicited


responses.


elicited


This


effect


responses


was


because


observed


the


the


intensity


used


cutaneously


was


great


number


as to produce


of presentations


relatively


little


made,


habituation


the


cutaneous


the


blink









hypothesis


above)


that,


were


effects


observed


on puff-


elicited


blinks,


responses


attend-puff


condition


would


be smaller


than


the


attend-noise


condition


(figure


hypothesis


A final


hypothesis


suggests


that


possible


that


reported


sensitization


results


reflect


produced


the


differences


probability


response


occurrence


each


stimulus.


In each


block


Six


trials,


the


task-


relevant


stimulus


was


presented


four


times


as compared


with


the


task-irrelevant


stimulus.


Airpuff


stimuli,


in general,


elicit


blinks


of larger


absolute


magnitude


than


those


elicited


noise.


It follows,


then,


that


greater


amplitudes


observed


acoustically


elicited


blinks


the


attend-puff


condition


may


reflect


generalized


response


set


greater


responding,


sensitization


that


extended


the


noise


induced


responses.


This


effect


was


produced


the


potent


airpuff


stimuli


which


occurred


twice


as frequently


the


attend-


puff


condition.


this


case,


were


ceiling


effects


cutaneously


elicited


blinks


avoided,


effects


would


follow


those


predicted


the


first


hypothesis


above


with


amplitudes


of puff-eli


cited


blinks


the


attend-puff


condition


eing


greater


than


the


attend-noise


condition


(figure


, hypothesis


Further,


since


response









results


could


be manipulated


changing


the


ratio


stimulus


presentation.


Four


hypothe


ses


, then,


are


proposed


to explain


results


of Haerich


(1988)


Two


them,


the


habituation


response


sensiti


zation


hypotheses


(figure


hypothe


ses


and


predict


that


the


pattern


of results


will


follow


the


frequency


with


which


the


various


stimuli


are


presented.


other


predict


attention


related


effects


that


should


be independent


of frequency


presentation,


general


potentiation


while


judging


airpuffs


on the


one


hand,


or inhibition


of responding


to task-


relevant


stimuli


on the


other.


In order


to investigate


poss


ible


effects


of selective


attending


further


and


understand


better


experiments


the


were


results

conducted


report

which


Haerich


evaluate


(1988),


these


hypotheses.


Since

opposite


the


results


direction


from


of Haerich


those


(1988)


reported


were


the


previous


studies


which


have


manipulated


attention,


the


first


task


establish


the


reliability


the


effect.


Experiment


partial


results


of which


were


reported


Haerich


& Berg


(1988)--attempts


to replicate


the


results


of Haerich


(1988)


using


a lower


intensity


airpuff.


may


first


of all


noticed


from


the


above









that


would


puff-elicited


produce


blinks,


potentiated


the


responses


attend-puff


relative


condition


the


attend-noise


condition.


second


and


third


hypotheses


predict


the


opposite,


that


puff-elicited


blinks,


the


attend-puff


condition


would


produce


inhibited


responses


relative


attend-noise


condition.


(Figure


Therefore,


one


primary


goal


these


experiments


was


devise


conditions


more


conducive


to demonstrating


possible


attentional


influences


in responding


to cutaneous


stimuli.


To accomplish


this,


Experiment


used


an airpuff


stimulus


of lower


intensity


that


did


Haerich


(1988)


and


the


intensity


was


decreased


further


Experiment


Experiment


II also


attempted


to foster


any


attentional


effects


which


previously


beyond


the


experimental


limb.


Attention

interval


was

(from


enhanced


s to 2


decreasing


the


increasing


preparation

the


difficulty


stimulus-duration-discrimination


task


(i.e.


manipulating


the


stimulus


durations).


may


above


also


differ


be noticed


their


that


prediction


the


as to


hypotheses


the


proposed


sensitivity


response


the


stimulus


presentation


frequency.


Hypotheses


three


and


four


suggest


that


presentation


frequency


is a major


factor


producing


the


observed


results.


Therefore,


Experiment


II manipulated


the









conditions.


This was designed


to separate


the effects of


response sensitization and habituation


from those of


orienting and selective attention.
















EXPERIMENT


This


experiment


was


designed


as a replication


Haerich


(1988)


to find


the


effect


of attentional


condition


on noise


elicited


reflex


blinks


was


reliable.


In several


earlier


studi


, Hackley


Graham,


1983),


when


modality


to which


attention


was


directed


was


also


that


which


the


eliciting


stimulus


was


delivered,


responses


were


potentiated


compared


condition


which


stimulus.


The


the


modality


results


of attention


of Haerich


(1988)


mismatched


were


opposite


direction;


responses


were


smaller


the


matched


condition


than


mismatched.


Since,


given


the


context


previous


rese


arch,


this


result


was


unexpected

replication


and

was


unprecedented,


order


was


to establish


decided


the


that


reliability


effect.


It should


also


be recalled


that


the


previous


study


(Haerich,


1988)


the


effect


of attentional


condition


was


found


only


acoustically


elic


ited


blinks.


Blinks


elicited


airpuff


showed


no effect


of attentional


focus,









intensity


the


airpuff


stimulus


from


mm Hg


(flow


cc/s)


to 60


mm Hg


(flow


= 151


cc/s


Thi


change


was


made


with


aim


of lowering


respon


ses


from


ceiling


thus


allowing


The

unwarned


any


effects


second

control


change

trials


of selective


in procedure


The


attention


was


earlier


appear


inclusion


studies


the


reflex


blink


and


attention


(Bohlin


Graham,


1977;


Bohlin


et al.,


1981;


Silverstein


et al.,


1981)


utilized


only


single


reflex


eliciting


stimulus


and


used


unwarned


trials


as the


primary


comparison.


Those


studies


utili


zing


two


eliciting


stimuli


(Anthony


Graham,


1983,


1985;


Hackley


Graham,


1983;


Haerich,


1988)


compared


attend


-toward


with


specific


attend


away


conditions.


Since


effect


observed


Haerich


(1988)--acoustically


elicited


blinks


the


attend-noise


condition


were


ser


amplitude


than


those


in the


attend-puff


condition--had


not


been


reported


previously,


ques


tion


the


response


relations


hip


to unwarned


blinks


was


open


and


was


decided


the


such


trials


should


included


the


replication.


Method


The


methods


used


Experiment


are


a replication


those


used


Haerich


(1988)


save


two


exceptions


noted









Subjects


Subj ects


were


23 students


enrolled


a General


Psychology


course


who


received


course


credit


their


participation.


Data


from


two


these


were


not


included


in analyses


because


equipment


failure


the


loss


portions


their


data.


The


remaining


21 subjects


(females


= 9)


ranged


age


from


to 23


years


(mean


18.7 years).

Stimuli


Three


two


different


types


stimuli


of startle


were


citing


used,


a warning


stimuli,


noise


light,


bursts


airpuffs.


The


warning


light,


a red


LED,


was


used


inform


subjects


of the


beginning


of a trial,


allowing


subjects


relax


between


trials


and


thus


avoid


extended


vigilance


effects.


The

Stadler


white

Model


nois

455C


bursts


noise


were


generator


generated


and


a Grason-


presented


binaurally.


Sound


levels


were


calibrated


with


a Quest


Audiometer


Calibration


System,


Model


215-4512AM,


at 95


dB(A)


at each


ear.


Noise


bursts


were


two


durations,


ms and


both


with


ms rise/fall


times


matching


those


used


Haerich


(1988).


Airpuffs,


the


other


stimulus


used


to elicit


the


blink









solenoid


(Skinner


Electric


Valves,


Series


VAO)


gated


air


flow


from


the


regulator


through


a plastic


tube


to a nozzle


(inside


diameter


attached


to the


headpiece


which


also


the


held


the


orifice


earphones.


was


cm from


The


the


nozzle


was


skin


adjusted


directed


so that


one


half


centimeter


temporally


the


outer


canthus


the


left


orbit.


The


durations


of the


airpuff


stimuli,


like


the


noise


bursts,


were


ms and


ms.


All


noise


bursts


airpuffs


used


during


the


experiment


were


capable


of eliciting


a reflex


blink.


Data


Collection


Analysis


An IBM


trial


PC which


stimulus


controlled


presentation


the


was


timing


also


and


used


order


to collect


electrophysiological


data.


Electromyographic


(EMG)


activity


from


orbicularis


oculi


was


recorded


with


two


miniature


Sensor


Medics


Ag/AgC1


surface


electrodes


attached


with


adhesive


collars


below


the


left


as described


Fridlund


Cacioppo


(1986).


the


EMG


was


onset


recorded


the


for


startling


ms beginning


stimulus.


For


ms prior


airpuffs


length


the


plastic


tubing,


the


electric


valve,


and


the


AC switch


controlling


introduced


a 26


ms delay


following

cutaneous


the


computer


reflex


signal


latencies


wer


to initiate

e corrected


the

for


stimulus;


this









and


integrated


a Contour


Following


Integrator


(Coulbourn


Instruments,


S76-01)


an empirically


determined


was


time


through


constant


a Beckman


of 114


The


polygraph


(Type


integrated


411)


signal


where


additional


but


negligible


filtering


lowpas


was


provided


digitized


a Beckman


on line


type-9806A


a Tecmar


coupler


LabMaster


before


unit


being


the


sampling


at 1000


Hz with


12 bit


sampling


resolution.


These


data


were


stored


on disk


off-line


analysis.


Data


used


in analyses


of reflex


probability,


latency,


amplitude


digitized,


were


obtained


integrated


off-line


records.


scoring


Previous


research


(Haerich,


1988)


indicated


that


responding


was


unaffected


the


stimulus


duration


manipulation.


These


data


were,


therefore,


combined


analysis.


An automatic


scoring


program


was


written


which


searched


each


trial


blink


onset,


defined


as the


point,


within


a window


of 20


ms after


deviation


stimulus


the


onset,


direction


at which


of a blink


signal


began


of at least


40 a-d


units


within


ms.


Peak


amplitude


was


scored


relative


pre-response


baseline


the


maximum


deviation


within


a window


onset


the


and


bounds


ms after


of which


were


stimulus


point


onset.


The


response


pre-response


baseline


was


calculated


as the


mean


value


for


the









Blink'

of blin


trial.

k trial


Blink


probability


divided


the


was


sum


defined


the


as the


no-blink


number

plus


blink


trial


each


condition


within


subj ects


Trials


which


the


EMG


indicated


that


muscle


were


already


active


stimulus


onset,


subsequently


obscuring


blink


onset,


were


not


included


the


probability


computation,


nor

and


other


amplitude


response

were av


measures


eraged


Values


across


for


trials


blink


latency


each


condition


within


subjects


these


averages


and


the


blink


probability


scores


were


used


stati


stical


analyses


Heart


rate


data


were


collected


ten


seconds


beginning


two


seconds


prior


to onset


the


warning


light,


or the


equivalent


interval


on unwarned


trials


Since


the


first

zero


and

and


last

nine


seconds


of data


respectively,


see


(considered


figure


seconds

included


number

partial


cardiac


cycles


indeterminate


length,


valid


data


were


available


from


the


second


prior


to onset


the


warning


light,


throughout


the


four


seconds


the


warning


interval,


and


three


seconds


after


onset


the


blink-


eliciting


stimulus.


Electrodes


were


attached


the


arms


left


a Lead


arrangement.


Inter-R-wave


intervals


were


computed


the


nearest


t milli


second


stored


on disk


off


line


conversion


to second


second


heart


rate.




















Trial Events. Summary
each trial. During ea
subjects judged durati
stimulus, but could re
type. For Experiment
by two seconds.


f events
sequence
s only fo
ive stimu
, the ISI


occurring
of trials
r one type
li of eith
was decre


during

of
er
ased


Ficqure















warning LED -


S2


sequence a f


sequence b /


i prepare to judge noise


prepare to judge noise
////////////


prepare to judge puff


V//////////////////.

prepare to judge puff
2


noise (long or short)


puff (long or short)


puff (long or short)


noise (long or short)


1 2 3 4


seconds


i//////////// ///









physiological


indication


that


subjects


were


attending


during


trials


(Bohlin


Graham,


1977;


Graham


et al.


, 1975)


Procedure


After


obtaining


informed


consent


from


subj ects


attaching


the


five


electrodes,


the


subjects


were


seated


an IAC


sound


attenuating


chamber.


The


headpiece


with


earphones


that


and


was


airpuff


comfortable


nozzle

e and


was


donned


so that


the


adjusted


nozzle


was


directed


as described


above.


Subjects


were


instructed


as still


fixate


the


as pos


warning


sible

light


during

located


the

.75


experiment

m directly


in front


the


subject,


and


were


told


that


this


light


would


come


on at the


beginning


of each


trial.


Subj


ects


were


then


told


that


they


would


receiving


a number


of stimuli,


some


of which


would


be bursts


of noise


while


others


were


puffs


of air,


that


each


type


of stimulus


would


either


short


or long


duration


that


their


task


was


judge


the


stimulus


with


respect


these


duration


categories.


All


subjects


were


then


presented


with


example


of short


and


long


duration


stimuli


of each


type


(noise


and


airpuff).


The


subj ects


were


instructed


verbally

device (:


report


Maxon


their


Model


j udgements


49-SA)


using


attached


an FM two-way


the


radio


headset.


Finally


subjects


were


told


that


, although


both


noise









for,


" to


the


" concentrate


specified


stimulus


" and


type


"pay


and


special


to report


attention


their


discrimination


decisions


only


these


stimuli.


They


were


told


ignore


other


stimulus


which


occurred


that


they


need


not


report


judgments


them.


After


first


sequence


of trials


these


instructions


were


reversed


subjects


were


asked


to judge


second


stimulus


type,


ignoring


the


first.


A speeded


response


was


not


requested


and


feedback


was


not


given.


The


purpose


duration


discrimination


task


was


to focus


subjects


' attention


on one


or the


other


sensory


modality


during


the


trial.


was


expected


that


above


chance


performance


on thi


task


could


be used


conjunction


with


the


heart


rate


data


indicative


of the


focusing


of attention


the


subjects.


A heart


rate


deceleration


reaching


nadir


just


prior


the


blink


stimulus


would


be indicative


of orienting


and


the


focusing


of attention


on the


task


in general


(Bohlin


Graham,


1977;


Graham


& Clifton,


1966;


Graham,


Putnam,


and


Leavitt,


1975;


Sokolov,


1969) ,


and


a high


score


on the


j udgement


task


would


be indicative


the


direction


focus


toward


the


modality


the


task


relevant


stimulus.


The


experiment


consisted of


two


sequences


of 30


trials e


ach.


For


each


sequence


warned


trials


were









stimuli


were


included


equally


each


block.


A total


unwarned


(i.e


. warning


light


omitted)


trials


were


inserted,


evenly


dispersed


among


the


warned


trial


such


that

one


every f

unwarned


ive


trials


trial.


contained


Three


the


four

six


warned

unwarne


trials

d trial


were


noise


three


were


airpuff.


The

constant


process


(see


of events


figure


Four


within e

seconds


ach


trial


after


was


onset


the


warning


light


the


startling


stimulus,


either


an airpuff


a noi


burst,


was


presented.


The


eight


seconds


of heart


rate


retained


analysis


began


one


second


prior


to onset


the


warning


light.


EMG


was


recorded


for


beginning


ms prior


to onset


the


startling


stimulus


Unwarned


trial


were


different


from


warned


trials


only


that


the


warning


light


was


omitted.


The


inter


-trial


interval


varied


between


and


25 seconds


(mean


= 20 s)


Results


Task


Performance


may


seen


from


figure


which


shows


the


performance


results,


no difference


was


found


between


those


subjects


who


judged


first


and


those


who


judged


airpuffs


first


The


subjects


did


very


well


judging


durations


noise


stimuli;


however


, they


did




















Fiqure


Blink


Response:


Experiment


a) Task
correct
present
Probabil
reflex b
for both
(bottom,
condition
greater
(bottom,
the perc
each sti:
to noise
instruct
judging


Pe
is


rformance
criminatio


a ror eac
ity (top,
link duri
stimulus
left).
n. Laten
than on w
right).
entage of
mulus mod
stimuli
ed to lud


noise.


a.


n se
rig
ng w
typ
Refl
cies
arne
Ref
the
alit
are


ge


(top, left).
ns of each st
quence order.
ht). Probabi
earned and unw
es. c) Blin
ex latency in
on unwarned
d. d) Blink
lex amplitude
mean reflex
y. On warned
greater when


airpuffs


Percentage of
imulus type
b) Blink
lity of a
arned trials
k Latency
each
trials are
Amplitude
expressed as
amplitude for
trials, blinks
subjects are


as compared


!











Task


Performance


Blink


Probability


SEQUENCE ORDER


noise


E puff


STIMULUS RECEVED
I noise
E puff


wrnd


unwd


wrnd


unwd


noise


noise


Stimulus Modality Judged


Attention Directed Toward


Blink


Latency


Blink


Amplitude


8, 50
C
3 45


STIMULUS RECEIVED


noie


[] puff


wrnd


unwd


wrnd


unwd


a


140

a
*120
E
0


S- -= So I


0.9

0.85

0.8


sl


* ^ a,





















Figure


Heart


Rate:


Experiment


Average


heart


rate


response
trials.
(bottom)
relative
points r
entire s
represent
second.


s fo
Dat
and
to
epre
econ


t
s
d


ting
For


wa
ar
dif
he
ent
an
the
thi


rned (1
e expre
ference
second
the av
d thus
mid-po
s reason


ft)
sed
scor
rior
rage
houl
nt.


and
in b
es (
Si
hea
d be
in t


un
ot
to
on
rt
c
im


timulus


w
h


arned
raw


p) cal
set.
rate
onside
e, of


(right
form
culated
Data
across
red as
the


occurrences


are


midway


between


data


points.


)










Warned


HR


Response


Unwarne d


Response


Difference


Data


Difference


Data


1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Seconds


Indicates:
-*--


1 2 3 4


5 6
S2


Seconds


Stimulus Judged-Stimulus Received


noise-noise
noise-puff


...41-.-
.-. k--


puff-noise
puff-puff


Warned


HR


Response


Unwarned


HR


Response


Raw


Data


Raw


Data


85


80


E 75
0
7
c 70
t:
C
o
4)
X


4









performance


on both


stimuli


was


significantly


greater


than


chance


(chi


and


squares


puff


respectively).


and


These


.61,


results


< .01

differ


for

from


those


of Haerich


(1988)


which


task


performance


on the


types


of stimuli


was


approximately


equal,


being


and


correct


and


airpuff


judgments,


respectively


Apparently


decreased


intensity


the


airpuffs


used


the


pres


experiment


greatly


increased


difficulty


the


puff


scrimination


task.


Heart


Rate


Warned


unwarned


second


second


heart


rate


responses


are


shown


figure


appears


that,


warned


trials


, heart


rate


responded


similarly


each


condition,


decelerating


after


the


warning


stimulus,


reaching


a nadir


just


subsequent


the


onset


of S2


accelerating


across


next


three


seconds.


Unwarned


trial


while


showing


an acceleration


after


the


eliciting


stimulus,


produced


no evidence


of consistent


heart


rate


trends


prior


to S2


Repeated


measures


analysis


of variance


(ANOVA)


seconds


one


six


reveal


a significant


effect


warning


(1/20)


= 8.09


.01)


and


a significant


warning


linear


seconds


interaction


= 10.67,


.01)


Heart


rate


decelerated


sequent


the


onset


the









overall


effect


of attentional


condition


also


reached


significance


(1/20)


.89,


.05).


This


appears


due


the


tendency


heart


rate


in the


attend-noise


condition


condition,


to be greater


especially


than


that


unwarned


attend-puff


trials.


Inspection


raw


heart


rate


data


see


figure


bottom


panels)


indicates

condition


that

was


baseline


5 beats


heart


per


rate


minute


in the


greater


attend-noise


than


was


the


attend-puff


condition,


an observation


which


would


appear


to be significant


intra-ocular


trauma


test,


well.


Heart


rate


accelerated


across


seconds


six


to eight,


seconds


subsequent


the


reflex


eliciting


stimulus.


Analysis


this


acceleration


revealed


a significant


linear


trend


(1/20)


= 25.97,


.001)


In addition,


the


effect


of warning


also


reached


significance


1/20)


= 9.44,


.01) ,


apparently


due


to accelerations


warned


trials


consistently


starting


from


a lower


level


than


unwarned


ones.


No other


main


effects


or interactions


achieved


significance.


The


persi


stent


cardiac


deceleration


prior


to a warned


indicative


of a signal


orienting


response


(Graham


Clifton,


1970).


1966;


When


Sokolov,


taken


1969;


together


. also


with


Lacey


results


& Lacey,


the









Blink


Responses


Probability.


Blink


probability


was


uniformly


high,


greater


than


as can


seen


figure


Analysis


variance


detected


no significant


main


effects


interactions.


Latency.


An effect


of warning


immediately


apparent


upon


inspection


the


data.


This


confirmed


ANOVA


= 45.61,


.001)


indicating


that


providing


latency


means


a warning


both


also


stimulus


stimulus


suggests


greatly


modalities.


a stimulus


reduced


The


effect


response


direction


which


response


to noise


occurs


with


greater


latency


than


response


to airpuff;


however


the


main


effect


of stimulus


was


not


significant


(1/20)


= 1.33,


.10).


Except


effect


of warning,


no main


effects


or interactions


reached


significance.


This


lack


of attention


direction


effect


on response


latency


fails


to replicate


the


results


of Haerich


(1988)


which


found


that


latencies


to acoustic


stimuli


when


attending


to noise


were


greater


than


when


attending


puff.


Amplitude.


In order


to make


responses


more


readily


comparable


across


subj


ects


and


stimulus


modalities,


responses


were


normalized


calculating


the


mean


response


0.9,









The


main


effect


of attention


condition


failed


reach


significance.


Nevertheless,


these


normalized


data


reveal


a pattern


of responding


which


mimicked


that


Haerich


(1988).


Warned,


acous


tically


elicited


blinks


when


attending


to cutaneous


stimuli


were


larger


than


when


attending


noise.


An ANOVA


warning


responding


with


did


(1/20)


after


responding


reveal


= 19


a warning

on unwarned


a significant


.001)


was


main


effect


indicating


potentiated


trials.


Blinks


that


as compared


elicited


noise


stimuli


were,


on the


whole,


more


sensitive


effects


warning


(Warning


X Stimulus


interaction,


(1/20)


= 5.84,


p<.05).


Although


the


main


effect


of attention


direction


did


reach


significance


, when


subj ects


were


attending


airpuffs,


the


effect


of warning


was


potentiated


(Attention


X Warning


effect


interaction,


warning


(1/20)


occurred


= 5.17,


both


.05).


acoustically


cutaneously


elicited


blinks.


Follow-up


analyses


conducted


on responses


from


warned


trials


alone


did


reveal


a significant


effect


of attention


at a marginal


confidence


level


(1/20)


= 3.19


.07).


interaction


with


stimulus


did


not


achieve


significance


.10).









Discussion


primary


purpose


this


experiment


was


replicate


task


condition


effect


of Haerich


(1988).


Strong


evidence


from


the


performance


and


heart


rate


data


demonstrate


that


subjects


were


attending


the


stimuli.


the


same


time,


there


was


a significant


Attention


Warning


interaction


blink


amplitude


which


the


potentiating


effect


warning


was


greater


while


subj ects


were


attending


to airpuffs


than


while


attending


to noise.


This


effect


was


confirmed


direct


follow-up


analyses.


Taken


together,


these


data


suggest


that


the


effect


observed


Haerich


(1988)


was


indeed


replicated;


acoustically


elicited


blinks


were


potentiated


during


the


attend-puff


condition


relative


the


attend-noise


condition.


The


Attention


X Warning


interaction,


the


absence


of a three-way


interaction


with


stimulus,


also


suggests


that


cutaneously


elicited


responses


might


also


sensitive


also


the


task


potentiated


manipulation.


the


attend-puff


These


responses


condition.


Since


were

the


other


goal


this


experiment


was


to produce


conditions


conducive


elicited


demon


responses


strating


lowering


influences


airpuff


on airpuff-


intensity,


wnri r]


aInnoJ rr


hnth


nlrhl-i 1 oyrq


To A-1


Ac clrlh


th~a-


rrra 1 e


I I









The


interference


inhibition


hypothesis


(figure


hypothesis


would


explain


these


data.


This


hypothesis


, which


posited


that


selective


attention


inhibits


reduction


responding


response


task-relevant


amplitude


stimuli


predicts


puff-elicited


blinks


the


attend-puff


condition.


The


analysis


indicates


that


the


oppo


site


occurred.


the


same


way,


the


habituation


hypothe


(figure


, hypothesis


also


runs


into


trouble


as it


would


predict


that


airpuff-elicited


blinks


would


of smaller


amplitude


the


attend-puff


condition


due


their


greater


frequency


of presentation.


Again,


the


analysis


suggests


the


opposite


was


the


case.


The


response


sensitization


hypothesis


(figure


hypothesis


does


receive


partial


support


from


these


data.


This


hypothesis


sugg


ested


that


a generalized


response


sensitization


produced


a combination


of the


intensity


frequency


the


in the


airpuff


stimulus


attend-puff


relative


condition.


Responding


warned


stimuli


of both


types


is potentiated


the


attend-


puff


condition.


However,


thi


hypothe


S'S


would


also


predict


that


responding


to unwarned


stimuli,


as well


would


be potentiated.


Rather,


the


opposite


appears


have


been


the


case,


with


unwarned


responses


accounting


a smaller


percentage


the


mean


the


attend-puff









same


effect


was


evident


the


raw


scores


(cf.


Appendix


The


attend-puff


potentiation


hypothesis,


one


that


proposed


some


attentional


mechanism,


perhaps


akin


orienting,


was


involved


the


airpuff


judgment


trials


(figure


hypothesis


would


also


predict


greater


blink


amplitudes


warned


responses


to both


types


of stimuli.


Unlike


the


response


sensiti


zation


hypothesis,


this


hypothesis


does


predict


that


responding


to unwarned


stimuli


would


be potentiated


as well.


It would,


therefore,


seem


that,


the


four


hypotheses


proposed


above,


the


one


which


best


predicts


the


observed


data


that


increased


orienting


during


the


attend-puff


condition.


was


also


suggested


hypothesis


one,


above


, that


the


enhanced


orienting


during


the


attend-puff


task


could


have


been


induced


greater


difficulty


of the


duration


discrimination


task


airpuffs


than


noise.


Such


a suggestion


would


predict


that


this


difficulty


might


be reflected


the


task


performance


data


and/or


heart


rate


data


Haerich,


1988,


study,


there


was


no apparent


difference


in task


performance;


subj ects


performed


However,


at about


in the


a 90%


current


correct


level


experiment,


the


both


stimuli.


intensity


the









stimulus


intensity,


performance


on airpuff


discrimination


dropped


to 65%,


suggesting


that


such


increase


difficulty


did


occur.


Haerich


(1988)


suggested


that


airpuff


discrimination


was


more


difficult,


based,


not


only


on subjects


reports


that


such


judgments


required


more


"effort,


" but


also


on a


(non-significantly)


greater


heart


rate


deceleration


attend-puff


condition


just


prior


to S2


as compared


with


attend


noise


condition.


The


raw


heart


rate


data


current


attend-puff


experiment


condition


provided


produced


further


baseline


support


heart


as the


rates


consistently


below


that


the


attend-noise


condition.


Such


a generalized


decrease


heart


rate


might


expected


subjects


were


attending


exogenous


environmental


stimuli


with


greater


cognitive


effort


(Lacey,


1967;


Lacey


Lacey,


1974).


While


the


results


of Experiment


seem


consonant


with


a mechanism


which


potentates


responding


while


subjects


discriminate


airpuffs,


these


data


cannot


entirely


preclude


contributing


effects


response


sensitization.


These


effects


would


be sensitive


to manipulation


of stimulus


presentation


frequency.


Thi


will


tested


explicitly


Experiment


The


absolute


amplitude


the


effects


on cutaneously









would


be derived


these


cutaneous


effects


could


reproduced


and


magnified.


Steps


towards


thi


end


will


also


taken


in Experiment
















EXPERIMENT


primary


purpose


of Experiment


was


assess


effect


varying


frequency


with


which


task-


relevant


stimuli


were


presented.


Both


Experiment


and


Haerich


(1988)


presented


stimuli


with


a relevant-irrelevant


ratio


two


one.


This


confounds


relevant


stimulus


possible


modality


effects


with


of attending


effects


the


cause


task-


the


relatively


greater


presentation.


frequency


In order


that


test


stimulus


possible


effects


presentation


frequency


the


three


groups


of subjects


Experiment


were


presented


with


stimuli


with


relevant-


irrelevant


ratios


two


one,


one


two,


and


one


one.


The


attend-puff


potentiation


interference


inhibition


hypotheses


(figure


numbers


1 and


predict


that


manipulating


frequency


with


which


task-relevant


stimuli


are


presented


will


have


a negligible


effect


responding.


Whether


task-relevant


stimuli


are


more


less


frequent


than


irrelevant


stimuli,


attend-puff









hypothesis


predicts


that,


example,


noise-elicited


blinks


will


be smaller


while


judging


noise


than


while


judging


puffs


independent


frequency


with


which


those


stimuli


are


presented.


In contrast,

sensitization hyp


habituation


Qotheses


(figure


response


numbers


predict


that


the


responding


largely


under


the


control


the


relative


frequency


with


which


the


different


stimuli


are


presented.


The


habituation


hypothesis


predicts


that


presenting


one


stimulus


more


frequently


than


the


other


will


produce


relatively


greater


habituation


and,


thus,


reduced


responding


that


stimulus.


This


hypothesis


predicts


that


this


response


reduction


occurs


whether


the


stimulus


task-relevant.


The


response


sensiti


zation


hypothesis


also


predicts


that


manipulating


the


ratio


task-relevant


and


irrelevant


stimuli


will


affect


the


pattern


of responding.


this


hypothesis,


the


frequency


of airpuff


presentation,


rather


than


stimulus


frequency


in general,


that


the


critical


variable.


Whichever


trial


sequence


presents


puff


stimuli


more


often


will


produce


facilitated


responding


to both


stimulus


types.


It should


also


be noted


that


the


attend-puff


potentiation


and


response


sensiti


zation


hypotheses


on the









each


types;


attention


that


condition


when


varies


responding


together


elicited


both


in one


stimulus


stimulus


modality


potentiated


a given


attention


condition


responding


elicited


the


other


stimulus


modality


will


too.


For


the


latter


two


hypotheses,


the


patterns


of responding


to each


directions


two


attention


stimulus


condition


types


vary


, that


in opposite


when


response


elicited


one


stimulus


is potentiated


given


attention


direction,


the


response


the


other


stimulus


will


be potentiated


the


other


attention


direction.


follows


that


producing


clear


and


distinct


effects


both


stimulus


types


will


maximize


the


expository


power


of the

stimuli


results.

were de


In Experiment


creased


the


an effort


intensity


to lower


of airpuff


responding


away


from


ceiling.


The


results


suggested


that


factors


involved


attending


to airpuff


stimuli


may


measurably


affect


size


responding


the


cutaneous


that


difference


blinks


was


stimulus.


between


small.


Still,


attention

an effort


the


absolute


conditions

to magnify


for

any


effects


of selective


attention,


especially


on puff-


elicited


blinks,


intensity


of airpuff


stimuli


was


further


decreased.


temporal


parameters


of the


paradigm


were


also









to dissipate


before


pre


sentation,


especially


with


increasing


numbers


of trials


Graham,


personal


communication,


21 October


1988);


therefore,


the


was


decreased


two


seconds


order


to allow


subj ects


more


effectively


to devote


their


attentional


resources


to the


task


while


interval


continuing


measuring


to provide

cardiac d


a sufficiently


eceleration


large


(Bohlin


Kj ellberg,


to equate


1979) .


more


Also,


accurately


stimulus


task


durations


difficulty


were


the


modified


two


stimulus


types.


The


attend-puff


potentiation


hypothesis


sits


that


an attentional


mechanism,


perhaps


akin


to orienting,


involved


the


judge-puff


trials.


Task


difficulty


one


factor


which


has


been


suggested


as being


important


this


mechanism.


operationally

discrimination


In Experiment


defined

task.


, task


terms


In order,


difficulty


of performance


therefore,


was


on the

measure


subjective


difficulty


more


accurately,


a brief


rating-


questionnaire


was


devised


which


subjects


could


rate


their


perceptions


the


task.


Besides


task


difficulty,


evaluations


of interestingness


and


pleasantness


were


also


gathered


affective


to provide


information


influences


relevant


tasks


to possible


Lang,


personal


communication,


June


1989).










Method


Subjects


Subjects


were


48 students


enrolled


in a General


Psychology


course


who


received


course


credit


their


participation.

Stimuli


In order


to lower


the


blink


amplitude


further


from


ceiling,


and


thereby


facilitate


any


attention


related


effects


on cutaneously


-elicited


responding,


the


intensity


the


airpuff


stimulus


controlled


an AIRCO


Series


pressure


regulator)


was


reduced


to 55


mm Hg.


Additional


restriction


was


applied


regulator


outflow


reducing


the


flow


rate


to 29


sec.


The


inten


sity


noise


bursts


was


also


decreased


to 93


dB(A).


These


values


were


chosen


they


have


been


found


to represent

intensity in


a point


of subjective


a cross-modal


matching


equality


task


perceived


(Woods


Haerich,


1989).


Stimulus


durations


were


and


noise


bursts


and


ms for


airpuffs.


These


durations


were


chosen


as pilot


testing


indicated


that


they


produced


equivalent


performance


at a 60%


to 70%


level


discrimination


task.


change


from


Experiment


Tfl C '~ r n n n7arS1


a rrl ar


,24*an* nn1a4


| n


warita


^-tra^-^ t


TGra C


T1,--F


n f









performance,


as the


results


of Experiment


may


have


been


part)


to a greater


difficulty


airpuff


disc


riminations.


Subjects


were


divided


into


three


groups


the


critical


difference


between


which


was


the


ratio


task-relevant


task


-irrelevant


stimulus


presentations


within


a given


trial


sequence.


For


group


one


relevant-irrelevant


ratio


was


two


one


was


Experiment


and


Haerich


(1988).


group


two


the


ratio


was


one


one,


and


group


three


one


two.


Other


aspects


of stimulus


presentation


including


the


frequency


of unwarned


stimuli


was


the


same


as Experiment


The


groups


in the


current


experiment


were


run


sequentially


during


a period


seven


weeks


with


the


data


from


subjects


in group


one


collected


first


group


two


last.


A rating


-questionnaire


was


used


measure


subj ects


perceptions


the


discrimination


task


on three


scal


es:


difficulty,


interestingness


, and


plea


santness.


The


questionnaire


consisted


of a printed


line


each


scale


the


case


of difficulty


judgements


was


labeled


one


end


"very


difficult"


and


the


other


"very


simple


Labelling


the


interestingness


and


pleasantness


scales


was


equivalent


SAfter


each


sequence


subjects


were


asked


to indicate


on each


of the


three


continuous


scales


their









the


room


with


subjects


while


the


ratings


were


made.


After


the


session


ended,


the


sition


these


lines


was


measured


the


nearest


t millimeter


and


expressed


as a proportion


of the


length


the


entire


line


such


that


a score


of 1.0


indicates


the


maximum


rating


of difficulty,


interestingness,


and


pleasantness,


and


a score


indicates


the


minimum.


The


questionnaire


was


a procedure


added


after


subj ect


testing


was


partially


complete.


Because


the


sequence


which


groups


were


tested


see


above),


complete


data


are


available


are


group


only


available


one.


group


group


While


two,


data


three,


precludes


of 16 subjects


none


adequate


available


evaluation


group,


or stimulus


presentation


frequency,


effects


these


measures


task


motivation,


still


provides


important


information


regarding


task


and


stimulus


influences.


other


procedures,


materials


, and


methods


were


described


Experiment


Results


Performance


Across


groups


, subj ects


were


able


to discriminate


correctly


noise


airpuff


durations


on 66.1


and


58.3




















Figure


Blink


Response:


a) Task P
correct di
presented
Probabilit
reflex bli
for both s
(bottom. 1


cond
grea
(bot
the
each
to b
subj


itio
ter
tom,
perc
sti
oth
ects


compared


er
sc
fo
y
nk
ti*
ef


Experiment


formanc
riminat
r each
(top, r
during
mulus t


t


Re


In. Latenc
than on wa
right).
;entage of
mulus moda
noise and


are


e (top,
ions of
sequence
ight).
warned
ypes.
flex la


left)
each
e orde
Proba
and u
c) B1
tency


on unwa
d. d)
lex ample
mean re
y. On w
f stimul


instructed


to judging


judge


. Percentage
stimulus type
r. b) Blink
ability of a
warned trials
ink Latency
in each


ed trial
ink Ampl
ude expr
ex ampli
ned tria
are grea


a as
for
blinks
when


airpuffs


noise.


w











Task


Performance


Blink


Probability


K 40

30

20

10

0


noise nuff


-J


noise


Stimulus Modality Judged


Attention Directed Toward


Blink


Latency


Blink


Amplitude


STIMULUS RECEIVED
U noMl


Bpuff


wmnd


unwd


wmd


unwd


140


c120


100


mA AA a a S i


|




















Figure


Heart


resp
tria
(top
onse
rate
cons
time


Rate:


onses fo
Is. Dat
) calcul
t. Data
across
idered a
, of the


Experiment


r
a
at
P
an
s
s


occurrences


warned (
are expr
ed relat
points re
entire
represent


second.
a midway


op)
sse
ve
res
eco
ing


For


an


d as
to t
ent
nd a
the
this


between


Average heart rate
d unwarned (bottom)


di
he
the
nd
mi
re


data


fference
second pr
average
thus shou
d-point,
ason. sti


score
ior S
heart
Id be
in
mulus


s
1


points.













Warned


Difference


Response

e Data


Seconds


Indicates:


Stimulus Judged-Stimulus


noise-noise

noise-puff


Difference


* ,11. C

.....A.-...


Received


puff-noise

puff-puff


puff-puf


Response

Data


I .
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
I I
a I
I a

I

omI


--. "g.1".
I
L"'A:
II
I
cI
* .
* *
-r
-I *
-I I'l
- I I
- I I
-I a


Unwarned


I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I





I
I


HR


HR









discrimination


did


not.


In addition,


chi-square


analyses


indicate


that


only


acoustic


discrimination


was


significantly


above


chance


(noise:


square


= 10.2


.05;


puff


: chi


square


.05).


Considering


the


performance


the


individual


groups


may


seen


that


when


ratio


of relevant


irrelevant


stimuli


two


one


or one


one,


performance


airpuff


discrimination


and


63.7% respectively


together


significantly


greater


than


chance


(chi


square


.05)


However,


when


frequency


task-


relevant


stimuli


decreased


the


one


two


ratio,


performance


drops


to 47.7%


correct.


Performance


the


same


groups


on noise


discrimination


was


70.0%


67.0%


respectively.


An ANOVA


indicates


a significant


Stimulus


X Group


interaction


/45)


= 4.55,


.025).


Heart


Rate


Considering


responding


appears


Experiment


Heart


heart


to have


rate


rate

been


responses


similar


decelerates


across


(figure

that i


the


interstimulus


interval


, but


only


when


the


warning,


stimulus

stimulus


is presented.


an acceleratio


Subsequent

n occurs w


whether


reflex

or not


eliciting

a warning


stimulus


had


been


presented.


Analysis


the


deceleration


across


seconds


one









a significant


effect


of warning


(1/45)


= 6.83,


.025)


and


a Warning


X Linear


Seconds


interaction


(1/45)


= 13.07,


.001).


Neither


the


main


effect


group,


nor


interactions


achieved


significance.


analysis


of cardiac


responding


after


the


reflex


stimulus


is more


complicated.


The


acceleration


across


seconds


four


to six


appears


as a significant


linear


trend


across


seconds


(1/45)


= 92.60,


.001).


No other


main


effects


or trends


achieved


significance.


Neither


the


main


effect


group,


nor


any


interactions


achieved


significance.


A number


of interactions


with


linear


seconds


appear


to result


points

unwarne

Linear

Linear


Warning


Warning


from


at which


differences


the


trials.


Seconds

Seconds


X Linear


X Linear


slope


accelerations


These


(1/45)

(1/45)


include

= 9.61,

= 3.94,


Seconds


Seconds


differences


begin,


Attention


.01)


.06)


(1/45)


(1/45)


.16,


= 25.53,


the


particularly

X Stimulus

, Stimulus X

, Attention :


.05),


.001)


interactions.


the


context


deceleration


during


inter-stimulus


interval


on warned


trials,


and


the


subsequent


acceleration


on all


trials


these


effects


appear


to be highly


meaningful.


Task


Motivation










were


considered


moderately


difficult,


of midline


interestingness,


slightly


unpleasant.


Individual


analyses


the


interestingness


data


each


group


revealed


only


a Sequence


Order


X Stimulus


interaction


(1/7)


= 8.37,


.025)


group


three.


No other


main


effects


of interactions


achieved


significance.


Blink


Response


Probability.


The


analysis


response


probability


reveals


main


stimulus


effects


modality


warning

. (1/45)


(1/45)


-- 9.15,


.85,


.01).


E <

The


.01)


probability


of a blink


reflex


was


greater


when


subj ects


were


warned


prior


presentation


the


eliciting


stimulus.


The


probability


of a blink


reflex


was


also


greater

or not


when

the w


arnin


eliciting

g stimulus


stimulus


was


was


presented.


an airpuff


The


whether


effect


response


probability


of manipulating


stimulus


presentation


frequency


is complicated,


however,


a significant


Attention


X Group


interaction


(2/45)


= 3.34,


.05).


The


overall


probability


a response


each


attention


condition


greater


the


attend-puff


condition


Group


One,


the


two


one


ratio,


but


is greater


the


attend-noise


condition


the


other


groups.


This


shift


reflects


during


the


the


greater


attend-puff


effect


of warning


conditions


on responding


those


experiments









.001)


reflects


strong


and


consistent


facilitatory


effect


a warning


stimulus


on blink


latency.


tendency


noise-elicited


blinks


to be


longer


in latency


than


puff-elic


ited


blinks


was


also


significant


the


overall


analysis


(1/45)


= 6.42,


.025)


Inspection


the


data


from


each


group


indicates


that


while

from


the e

sample


effects


to sample


warning

. the b


and


stimulus


aselines


upon


were

which


consistent

these


effects


appear


varied


dramatically


from


about


group


one


to 52


ms in group


two,


with


group


three


intermediate


at about


ms.


This


difference


from


sample


to sample


reflected


the


significant


main


effect


group


(1/45)


= 33.11,


.001).


The


overall


analysis


not


find


any


significant


interaction


involving


the


group


factor.


Amplitude.


main


effect


group


failed


achieve


significance


the


analysis


response


amplitude


as did


interactions


involving


group.


Thus,


hypothesis


that


changing


the


stimulus


presentation


ratio


affects


response


amplitude


was


not


supported.


Warned


stimuli


cited


reflex


blinks


of larger


amplitude


stimulus


than


was


stimuli


omitted


on trials


(1/45)


on which


= 26.97,


the


.001).


warning


This


potentiating


effect


warning


was


greater


se-









elicited


while


subjects


were


judging


airpuffs


(Attention


Warning


interaction,


= 6.51,


.025).


A consistent


pattern


of responding


across


both


Experiments

attend-puff


trials.


showed


condition,


In addition


responding


especially


significant


potentiated in the

responses on warned


Attention


Warning


interaction,


combined


analyst


also


revealed


main


effect


of attention


(1/45)


= 4.56,


.05).


One


of the


four


hypotheses


, the


attend-puff


potentiation


hypothesis


, predicted


consistent,


potentiated


res


ponding


to both


stimulus


types


while


subjects


are


selectively


attending


to airpuffs.


In order


to further


inves


tigate


the


responses


relevant


to thi


hypothesis


, post-hoc


analy


ses


were


conducted


data


from


warned


and


unwarned


trial


separately.


No effect


or interaction


involving


group


was


found


s <


However


, a main


effect


of attention


did


achieve


significance


(1/45)


= 8.38


.01)


but


only


warned


trial


These


data


indicate


that


warned


responses


elicited


stimuli


both


modaliti


were


larger


amplitude


when


subjects


were


selectively


attending


airpuffs


than


when


they


were


attending


noise.


Further


these


data


indicate


that


the


res


ponse


potentiation


was


found


across


stimulus


presentation


ratios


employed









obtained


this


paradigm,


analyses


were


run


which


specifically


looked


effects


of habituation.


For


each


subject,


responses


during


first


trial


sequence


only


were


analyzed.


This


produced


a between


groups


variable


trial


those


sequence


judging


contrasting


airpuff.


subjects


Warned


judging


trials


noise


each


with


stimulus


were


divided


into


those


presented


during


the


first


second


halves


of the


sequence


purposes


of examining


response


habituation.


Unwarned


trials


were


not


assessed


because


only


six


puff


noi


such


trials


occurred


a given


trial


sequence.


Details


the


habituation


data


are


included


Appendix


For


each


measure,


blink


probability


(1/42)


.84,


.05) ,


latency


(1/42)


.95,


.025) ,


and


amplitude


(1/4


= 39.96,


.001),


the


main


effect


half


was


significant.


No other


main


effect


or interaction


achieved


significance


any


the


analyses


habituation.


Discussion


The


most


prominent


and


consistent


result


from


the


current


experiment


a facilitatory


effect


warning.


magnitudes


In all


experiments,


potentiated


on warned


latencies


trials


were


shortened


as compared


with









al.,


1981;


Silverstein


et al.,


1981) .


An interpretation


based


on this


comparison


would


conclude


that


on warned


trials


subj ects


were


a state


of generalized


attention


sensory


input


which


included


at least


the


cutaneous


and


auditory


channels.


A difference


between


the


experimental


paradigms


used


these


experiments


most


the


previous


work


the


number


types


of stimuli


capable


of eliciting


a reflex


blink


which


each


subj ect


received.


Previous


work


used


stimulus


within


a single


modality


any


given


subject.


Typically

attending


subject

toward


are


or awa


given

v from


a task

the m


which


odality


involves


which


reflex


eliciting


stimulus


is presented.


The


reflex


stimulus


then


presented


either


alone


or simultaneously


with


a non-startle


stimulus,


and,


unwarned


during


the


inter-trial


paradigm

relevant


interval.


produced


stimuli


were


Using


response

tones (m


acoustic


stimuli,


facilitation


odality


when


matching,


this


task-

Bohlin


Graham,


stimuli


1977)


inhibition


delivered


the


when


forearm


they


the


were


electrotactile


subject


(modality


mismatching,


Silverstein


et al.,


1981).


The


exceptions


this


approach


were


two


studies


which


either


eliciting

Graham, 1


stimuli


983,


could


1985).


occur


These


on a given


studies


trial


manipulated


(Anthony &

attention









attending.


In the


current


experiments,


subjects


were


instructed


be ready


for"


a stimulus


in a particular


sensory


channel,


but


, since


irrelevant


stimuli


occurred


only


on trials


without


relevant


stimuli,


there


was


little


reason


single


them


channel.


to limit


It would,


their


attentional


therefore,


focus


be possible,


that


warning


generalized


stimulus


attention


produced


--akin


subjects


a state


to orienting--which


was


directed


toward


distributed


among,


but


necessarily


limited


both


the


sensory


channel


which


reflex


stimuli


could


appear.


An alternative


explanation


might


suggest


that


a state


negatively


valent


affect


sted


on warned


versus


unwarned


trial


demonstrated


Emotional


to affect


the


valence


reflex


has


blink


been


with


convincingly


negative


valence


potentiating


the


response


(Bradley


et al.,


1989;


also


some


the


intuitive


review


Lang


validity


et al.


the


, 1989).


notion


that


There


the


also


requirement


to make


a difficult


judgement


is a negatively


valent


situation.


The


ratings


of task


pleas


antness


which


were


collected


groups


two


and


three


provide


a direct


indicator


the


presence


or absence


of negative


affect


during


each


trial


sequence.


These


ratings,


which


indicate


an average









viewed


as neutral


affective


valence,


then


the


task


situation


was,


on the


whole


, considered


only


slightly


negative


subjects.


Such


a marginal


vote


towards


negative

unlikely


valence

to have


produce


current

d such


sample

a marked


of subjects i

potentiation


was


seen


on warned


trials.


While


such


an effect


cannot


be ruled


out,


would


seem


more


likely


that


potentiation


of responding


warned


trials


the


current


experiments


represents


effect


, perhaps


similar


to generalized


orienting


, in


which


subjects


are


focusing


their


attention


on acoustic


and


cutaneous


sensory


channels.


These


experiments


were


undertaken


with


the


purpose


replicating


providing


clarification


the


results


obtained


Haerich


(1988)


and


further


examining


the


possible


variables


controlling


these


results.


The


primary


finding


of Haerich


noise-elicited


stimulus


(1988)


blinks


durations


when


was


a relative


subjects


as compared


were


the


inhibition


judging


condition


which


they


were


judging


airpuff


durations.


This


result


was


replicated


both


experiments,


appearing


as a relatively


greater


warning


potentiation


the


attend-puff


condition.


Four


hypotheses


were


suggested


which


could


account


the


results


obtained


Haerich


(1988).


These









These


hypotheses


also


differed


their


predictions


regarding


effect


manipulating


the


ratio


task-


relevant


to task-irrelevant


stimuli.


interference


inhibition


hypothesis


(number


figure


predicts


that


attending


to a task-relevant


stimulus


produces


inhibition


the


response


that


stimulus


relative


the


condition


which


the


stimulus


is not


task-relevant


Therefore,


acoustically


elicited


responses

relative

elicited


would


inhibited


to the attend-puff

responses would be


the


condition,


relatively


:tend-noise

while cut


condition


aneously


inhibited


attend-puff


condition.


In Experiment


II--and


to a lesser


extent


Experiment


I--the


airpuff


stimulus


intensity


was


decreased


so that


responding


was


lowered


from


ceiling.


result


was


that


responding


to cutaneous


stimuli


was


consis


tently


opposite


potentiated


to the


in the


prediction


attend-puff


the


hypothesis


condition,

This


hypothesis,


therefore,


does


satisfactorily


explain


the


results


observed


these


experiments.


The


habituation


hypothesis


(number


three


figure


predicts


that


differences


in mean


responding


are


due


differential

stimulus pre


habituation


sentation


which


regimes.


occurs

This


under


different


hypothesis


predicts


that


groups


which


one


stimulus


was


presented









two,


where


both


stimuli


were


presented


with


equal


frequency


,no differences


would


be expected.


Again,


this


was


while


manifestly


judging


the


airpuffs


case.


was


Responding


potentiated


to both


relative


stimuli


the


attend-noise


condition


regard


ess


of changes


presentation


frequency


In addition,


response


habituation


was


explic


itly


investigated


each


frequency


condition


Experiment


Though


response


amplitude


did


habituate,


thi


habituation


was


different


across


task


conditions


stimuli,


, as


demonstrated


combined


analysis,


presentation


frequencies.


Thus


hypothe


, too,


fail


to explain


sati


sfactorily


results


observed


these


experiments.


A third


hypothesis


(number


four


figure


suggested


that


a generalized


response


sensitization


was


induced


the


task


condition


which


airpuffs


were


presented


with


greater


frequency


This


hypothesis


predicts


that


whichever


attention


condition


has


the


most


airpuffs


presented


will


have


the


largest


as well


puff


respon


ses.


prediction


was


tested


Experiment


II, particularly


condition


in which


task


relevant


stimuli


occurred


less


frequently


than


irrelevant


ones.


Since


potentiation


did


depend


the


ratio


of puffs


, this


third


hypothesis,


as well,


does


not









towards


discriminate


cutaneous


airpuff


modality


durations,


instructing


a generalized


subjects


response


facilitation


results.


This


hypothesis


would


predict


that


groups,


both


experiments


, responding


would


facilitated


attend-puff


condition


regardless


eliciting


stimulus.


This,


fact,


occurred.


The


experiments


provide


consistent


response


amplitude


results


consonant


with


this


position.


Both


Experiment


the


overall


analysis


of Experiment


II reveal


significant


main


effect


attention,


and


a significant


interaction


of Attention


X Warning


which


does


interact


with


presentation


ratio.


Subsequent


analysis


also


indicated


attend-puff


that,


warned


condition


was


trials


alone,


potentiated


responding


with


respect


the


the


attend-noise


condition.


The


data


from


Experiments


II show


that


besides


response


facilitation


due


to warning,


a response


potentiation


occurs


which


is associated


only


with


the


attend-puff


condition.


It is


not


manipulated


stimulus


pre


sentation


frequency.


was


suggested


Haerich


(1988)


that


the


responding


might


potentiated


increase


orienting


produced


the


greater


task


difficulty


airpuff


discrimination.


Task


difficulty


was


operationally


equated


Experiment


II by









types


was


considered


moderately


difficult


but


neither


discrimination


was


judged


significantly


more


difficult


than


the


other.


The


current


results


could


be explained


the


task


discriminating


airpuffs


was


more


effectively


negative


than


discriminating


noise.


However,


just


as data


are


lacking


to support


the


sition


that


the


attend-puff


potentiation


reflects


difficulty-induced


orienting,


they


are


equally


lacking


support


this


affective


explanation.


The


ratings


do not


indicate


any


difference


in perceived

Thus, n


pleasantness


either


between


an explanation


attention


the


conditions.


attend-puff


potentiation


in terms


of difficulty


or negative


affect


was


supported


data.


At present,


this


effect


may


, at


best,


be described


associated


with


as a generalized


instructions


response


subjects


potentiation


to discriminate


cutaneous


stimuli.


The


potentiation


was


observed


only


the


amplitude


of the


reveal


blink


any


response.


differences


Heart


among


rate


responding


conditions.


Such


does


a situation


is consonant


with


an interpretation


terms


of attention.


A deceleration


of heart


rate


can


index


occurrence


attending


but


typically


does


not


stingui


among


attention


conditions


(Graham,


1979)









potentiation

attending (B


and,


ohlin


like


cardiac


& Graham,


deceleration,


1977;


Bohlin


can


et al.,


index

1981).


Blink


latency


also


may


be reduced


when


amplitudes


are


inhibited


blink


while


stimulus


subjects


attention


Silverstein


directed


et al.,


1981)


away


and


from


reflect


additional


attention


given


an interesting


foreground


stimulus


(Anthony


Graham,


1985).


It is,


thus,


noteworthy


that


the


blink


amplitude


potentiation


observed


the


attend-puff


condition


the


current


experiments


reflected


the


latency


data,


suggesting


distinction


between


the


currently


observed


attend-puff


potentiation


and


the


selective


attention


effects


reported


previous


researchers.


sum,


these


experiments


have


demonstrated


potentiating


effect


of directing


attention


periorbital


airpuff


stimulus.


effect


not


due


sensiti


zing


effect


the


airpuff


stimulus


itself


does not


occur


when


attention


directed


noise


stimuli,


even


when


number


of such


stimuli


the


sequence


increased.


It is


not


due


task


difficulty


which


task


was


equated


performance


current


and


subj ect


research


ratings,


nor,


both


terms


due


negative


affect


which


was


likewise


constant


across


task


conditions.


Rather


seems


to be associated


with


the
















CONCLUSION


Two


important


results


from


the


current


experiments


should


be re-emphasized


here.


First,


reflex


blinking


both


stimuli


was


found


to be potentiated


a warning


stimulus


both


attentional


conditions.


is suggested


that,


since


either


stimulus


type


could


occur


on a given


trial,


subj ects


did


not


limit


their


attentional


resources


the


modality


the


task-relevant


stimulus,


indeed


there


was


no reason


to do


The


response


facilitation


on warned


trials,


then,


results


from


subjects


' generalized


orienting


of their


attention


toward


sensory


inputs.


This


result


was


observed


Experiment


and


each


group


Experiment


a consistency


indicating


the


strength


general


attentional


manipulation.


second


important


result


was


that


reflex


amplitude


both


stimulus


types


was


further


potentiated


when


subj ects


were


judging


airpuff


stimuli.


This


effect


not


due


to a sensiti


zing


influence


the


airpuff


stimulus


or to factors


involving


task


difficulty


negative


affect.


Rather, it


seems


to be associated


with









This


effect,


which


also


occurred


in all


groups


Experiment


theoretical


, may


and


have


empirical


strong


inve


implications


stigations


future


of selective


attention


(greater)


and


process


potentiation


sensory


occurred


when


information.


subjects


That


were


judging


airpuffs


as against


noise


stimuli


suggests


that


operation


processing


cognitive


which


not


which


calls


unitary


or forwards


across


develops


when


sensory


modalities.


salience


input


The


imputed


auditory


stimuli


equivalent


that


for


salient


cutaneous


input.


That


there


may


be something


intrinsically


different


between


the


periorbital


cutaneous


and


acoustic


analyzers


may


be suggested


at a deeper


level


than


differences


receptors


etc.


Fundamental


differences


between


the


two


blink


reflexes


may


found


the


underlying


neural


circuitry;


only


the


cutaneous


blink


reflex


is an


oligosynaptic


Too,


component


relationship


found


between


(Shahani


the


Young,


intensity


1973).


sensory


input


and


motor


output


differs


between


the


two.


A recent


study


found


that


a cutaneous


stimulus


which


rated


same


psychophysical


intensity


as a given


acoustic


stimulus


produces

It also


much la

appears


rger

that


responses


(Woods


facilitatory


Haerich,


effect


1989).

increasing









1989) .


Finally,


this


stimulus


which


elicits


the


acoustic


response


may


be considered


a distal


stimulus


in contrast


to the


proximal


stimulus


necessary


to elicit


the


cutaneous


response.


The


difference


in stimulus


proximity


suggests


that


the


cutaneous


reflex


may


more


specifically


defensive


nature


than


the


acoustic


reflex.


Taken


together,


the


above


suggests


that


distinctly


different


mechanisms


might


be involved


receiving


sensory


information


processing


from


auditory


and


tacto-


periorbital


inputs.


Further


investigations


should


be directed


towards


defining


more


precis


the


factors


involved


this


attend-puff


potentiation.


The


effect


may


be produced


the


marshalling


of attentional


resources


when


periorbital


cutaneous


stimuli


are


salient.


The


relevant


comparison,


then,


between


warned


stimuli


with


and


without


a task


requirement.


An experiment


which


blink


responses


are


recorded


before


and


after


institution


of a task


(e.g.,


duration


discrimination)


requirement


might


provide


important

paradigm,


evidence

similar


regarding


those


this


used


suggestion.

assess con


A two-phase


Lditioning


independent


of acquisition


curve


limitations


(Rescorla,


1988)


might


be designed;


the


first


phase,


blink


responses


to noise and


airpuff


stimuli


without


a task









perform


an equivalent


task


involving


neither


stimulus


modality


(task


control),


or repeat


phase


one


(non-task


control).


This


also


an important


manipulation


because


recent


work


(Haerich


et al.,


1989)


shown


dramatic


effects


on the


relationship


between


stimulus


intensity


and


blink


reflex


amplitude


depending


on the


presence


absence


of cognitive


task


requirements.


the


resources


effect


toward


depends


the


upon


task,


directing


might


attentional


possible


manipulate


the


motivational


context


providing


rewards


punishments


task


performance.


providing


feedback


the


subject


on task


performance,


offering


rewards


correct


performance


and/or


punishment


incorrect

motivation


performance,

to perform


and

the


varying


task


the


might


intensity


be brought


of each,

under


control.


Additional


foci


future


research


would


include


the


question


the


differences


result


from


the


current


experiments


those


of Hackley


and


Graham


(1983).


that


study,


warned


blinks


were


inhibited


as compared


with


unwarned;


also,


attending


toward


away


from


reflex


eliciting


stimuli


produced


facilitating


and


inhibiting


effects


respectively.


Three


specific


methodological


differences


between


the


Hackley


and


Graham


study


and


the









experiments


used


only


one


modality


of eliciting


stimulus


per


subject,


stimuli


were


presented


individually


current


experiments


while


Hackley


and


Graham


each


trial


included


eliciting


a compound


stimulus


stimulus


plus


cons


a non-eli


isting


citing


of a blink


stimulus,


startling


acoustic


stimulus


was


paired


with


a non-


startling


puff


to the


third


digit


left


hand


rather


than


with


a periorbital


airpuff.


The


effects


of each


these


variables


(number


of stimuli,


stimulus


compounding,


location


regarding


of airpuff


effect


presentation)


on blink


needs


reflex


to be assessed


modulation.


While


blink


reflex


has


proven


to be a powerful


research


tool,


important


questions


remain.























DATA:


MEANS


APPENDIX A
AND STANDARD


DEVIATIONS



























CO 0
U2
z 0
0



H
M
QC


m a


r CM


. u


Hr


CON C


r-cO


NHr-


a\ I


In In


Nr.J


C) W44 (H (04.) W14 (04)
OH H- MM 09 M ^ lU
OH$WH k .0 W
C *Hl -H *$. 1 -4
0 4 ci *- FP I( -ri A*HA E
E1 ) ) C Q) O C 1 .
#W W C0 COJ
OeW gw0O M ^ twW -E-w U4-
-4H* *H4- *H *H *H -H
kko^-iai0ao~rao7
S-I a4 0 ) Pc 1;& .0 2 Q00
Pc a a o o o
0 00040 0
X X 5
W 0 0

C


o 4-
H 5.W


o rW1
*H 03 M O U -*

-H

O00Q
CO~~O


Cp
( 4-)
5a W
e-4 4-4
Q)

O
0 3


) 40

- ,4- -,-4
OH *H
00-4I^00
ZA Z A-1s0


Mr






















rr 4Cf
OS 89


CO CO d
Inin inn i


0\ C0O


a0 0\


n cO Co -
\o 1 coV
rHm C'


In .o c r-
* *


Hn co rH
Sr-i rl i


cNcI
NmO CNW
C0 cu Fo
* 9 9 .


coot oo <
C N a\ e a


O e a coe
ntO mmn
0^ o C


mu"-'t
0P o
CM <



4-) -
*p
t ct




C
H


W -H ^
C

42Q)
l k
S4 .
Cnoz
a)


r-I
04


H 0) Va) 0 O) a 4) a 0)
wQ 4-4 00 U34-4-p M-W U2 Q-4 0Cf l- 0 A.C0 d*H-4<- C-HrQ CO OJV*HQ- C-HQ- O0-r4.1 C-r4Q-


PI a,36CSC C a, 1f 3
0*<9 > 4
^^(0 c Macn c Ao C
aG0S 0 3; 0
4 40 0
Q< a o o





















cOO coH
rnt n co
rHO CH


cO 0c
* *


O CN ri
0 NI ^D C


NN (' IrN


rH ,


r) M


co


\ 0"\ CO( s


O


CO un ,


'O in cOrH


r M


nf.


co 'M on
co O OW
00 NO


din m in
10 MO
* *
cowo nr


'o r- C c


r-1 CM in t
tar- r r-
Q<\ C0 cO


O nr


'o i


rN m r
^' mm Inn


0) 0 00
.) .rl 4(4 Cr4 (4
t 0*H M C-*H 4
! 00 C 00
a c ( 0
9 >

O
0
^i.
0,


N% vO crf ln
* c
t^ oM
mM P


0 'dO 01 '0

C) CV'r4- PCrlQ- 3 0' dOrIQI C3r44.
0C5-H4 C-* CO- C-*

C; <1 1) 03 Q) 05 3 UC< O?

a a o
^ x x ^
*M > 0
4 040

CW W O
-H
'i
OQ


OM






















r-f l


n od


M nt


NIX)


'In
rYr4
r-i 1-


o C\


O0


rI N


n co


in r


I rr4


O


air-


' CO


CO O


a CO


\oN


LO i


CO r1


inM


r .l


0)
Ot M <
>WI'-'
0V44-
O 1 ^


a (d
0o~

0


0) 0 1
c-r~ l k 3 -'-I
0 3!0) 0 3


a r-
ZQ4ICZ0

4 .
0


Q)
0
T3 *H <
000
a0o

s
'U


0
U3 4-1
0 *
*2: (


0 0
Mr tMI Q) U)i -l4 M r *44.
0 3' k P 0 9
O~4WO

(U
V](


M M






















00

\D ^J


ht 0
*O u
In r


co "-


rH O

nH


N(Mi


O oN


mN


HH


in li


' un


CO


qK fl


MM


C OO


CO r


CON


r-r$


rh-H


0X H
(fltI -4


0)



000
rn r
ca ricc

ro
s


0 k Q) 0

^1 t
tf t


0 0
0 0 03
Mfl) 03 $1 0

>3 fO (d C
4OW WQO
*HCZO40ZfA

:300 C


d CM
























NOI


r-r-

N CO
CMO


a0\


O C


COO
COo


O %n


UO N


'O n


0 C

C') ,.


NO


nMO


\ O


NO~


CO r"e


HO o
r-IN0
*0 *
n Va
CM

CO ,O


n.H


Is, C
rN


* -
OD N


M n


MO


CO


CO


-i


0)
In uI] (U


u) ^
12 4
Un(0


aC

0
Z040 a
$4
PC


a)
024.
'0 *c 4-
000
CZA P
$4
(U
s


Ci 0)
024-0 024-4
0O (U 11 (U) 0

O k
( '$
en f
:3
(U
w


'a
(0 '4-4

O r-H
$4 0
o C 0
O tl O
0) 4U0
C0C WU -z .U
0 0 M tr


4a
fO
3I 0
-Q
'U1 0
rd
(0j


UO CM























*O
In o


co I cm 0


mr


(M


00
00


-^ in in
* *
N oN


CO
*r *
r-lH


O0


'n n


Hr 4t


CIa cOH


0o \


* *
co ca


HN C


CO cO


NW in


In MMin


C O


MO


O0


SM


r$ o\ r4
oom O a


H H


(12
r- 1 (



*0WO
-Hvl 0d

EikO
(* r4
-H4 <
tM f(


rM rz WO-W



w 0r Z0

0) r -*
M C n MI ( M


-r4 M C

Hi (i 4- ()
k 't0 II

4W WO H W 0)- )C
&"- oCt c 0
,- 4wr -u Q- 0
EH F4V IJE4V O


41 ~r u4- r-


r4

*H4
mo
k
S-I
w r1
*M w
M
Q) -H(
P-


Co ao
(G3 *

C1 0

'I
0d
1O


10 r'4
NW (
SP ffl
0t M


0) -H
U F'U E
cM
3
-4
04


cM



n01 0
r4I0


540
CI C


rz*wo
mm
1) -H
wrz c3


NC























r-co
rHr


n O


O 9

('


a\ o


HO
r-1


I O


Mc


a\ o
AO (
* *
oMW


no


a\ -


(' N
** *
In S
IIIr-4


e r-


1CO
** c


r-IH


WNit
C -3

r-l r-1


'n in


O0


'0 H


efr


f-1 ((0 r- fO

(0 T? W T3 M T
U) H 'OW -

H OtfOE 4 flMO*HWO 3
AMO$-UOx 4U
Q*Jr4U2E. wrzMcn-4rz4


4-I rE


4I 1r1




r-1 rod rtf (- 40

1 'o t '0 w '3 0T
r*H+JCI .C 'rt CJ 4P C
F40moHWO z4U0O-'HO
0 9UFz40O kOrzkUM
C W*O 0 *r- <*& 0 *u 0
o UrZ 2c4-irME-4Ume C2(WCbzEU


4.J


c r4


c\


aO o




























































$51r '0
E-4CDVt Ci (44 Vt U
4H (4 .- 4
M M% u C


040 00
^ 0 (CO 4M O


40
-^ e in
ao 3:c



Drl-
o
O
0
















APPENDIX


EXPERIMENT


GROUP


BY GROUP


RESULTS


The


primary


purpose


of Experiment


was


assess


effect


of varying


frequency


with


which


task


relevant


stimuli


were


presented.


The


results


this


manipulation


their


implications


the


various


hypotheses


proposed


to explain


the


results


the


Haerich


(1988)


study


were


presented


above.


that


analysis


, significant


effects


of manipulating


ratio


of task-relevant


and


irrelevant


stimuli


were


observed.


These


effects


did


not


materially


affect


the


major


results.


It is,


however,


appropriate


to consider


group


group


analy


the


experiment


this


time.


These


groups


differed


mainly


the


ratio


task-relevant


to task


-irrelevant


stimuli.


These


ratios


were


two


one,


one


one,


and


one


to two


groups


one,


two,


three


respectively.


Task


Motivation


Results


the


motivation


rating-questionnaire


were


similar


both


groups


two


three


(data


were


available


from


group


one,


see


above).


The


discrimination









interactions


task


in subjects


pleasantness.


' rating


Regarding


task


intere


difficulty,


stingness,


nor


group


three,


the


Order


X Stimulus


interaction


was


significant


(1/7)


= 8.37,


.025),


indicating


that


both


sequences


, judging


the


second


stimulus


was


less


interesting


than


the


first.


Task


Performance


The


group


one


mean


percent


correct


scores


of 61 and


63.5


noise


airpuff


judgments


respectively


indicate


that


the


manipulation


of durations


did


produce


roughly


equivalent


task


difficulty


(1/14)


= 1.74,


.10).


inspection


mean


values


sequence


order


suggests


that


subjects


improved


with


practice


(figure


The


effect


does


is not


reach


significant


significance


judgments


judgments


of noise


of airpuff


stimuli


(1/14)


= 4.63,


.05).


The


practice


effect


does


not


occur


groups


two


and


three


suggesting


that


favorable


ratio,


such


as two


one,


is necessary


subjects


' airpuff


discrimination


to benefit


from


noise


practice


When


equal


numbers


of stimuli


are


presented,


as in


group


two,


discrimination


of airpuff


stimuli


was


again


equivalent


that


noise


stimuli


For


neither


stimulus


type


did


an effect


of stimulus


order


occur



















Figure


Task Motivation: Experiment II. Motivation
ratings on each scale, difficulty, interest, and
pleasantness. Data from group three represent a
sample from nine subjects only.











Group


NOISE PUFF
m


NOISE


SEQUENCE ORDER
noise 1st
M2 puff 1st
PUFF NOISE PUFF


difficulty interest pleasantness


Motivation


Scale


Group


SEQUENCE


ORDER


noise


NOISE


PUFF


puff


NOISE


PUFF


NOISE


PUFF


.~ A


E


Lli~




















Fiaure


Task Performance: Experiment II. Group
percentages of correct discrimination of
stimulus type presented for each sequence


by group
each
order.















Group


Group


SEQUENCE ORDER


noise


puff


1st
1st


70
. 60
S50
0
S40
30
20
10


SEQUENCE ORDER


noise


] puff


1st

1st


noise


noise


Stimulus Modality Judged


Stimulus Modality Judged


Group


100
90
80
70
.M 60
E50
0
n 40
30
20
10
0


SEQUENCE ORDER


noise


[] puff


1


1st

st


noise




















Figure


Heart Rate: Experiment II, Grp 1. Heart
difference scores on warned and unwarned
for each condition from group one.


rate
trials









Warned HR Response


Difference


Data


1 S1 2 3 S2 4 5 6


Seconds


Indicates:


Stimulus Judged-Stimulus Received


-*- noise-noise


--p -


noise-puff


Unwarned


..-*.-.
... ...


HR


Difference


puff-noise
puff-puff


Response
Data




















Figure


Heart Rate: Experiment II, Grp 2. Heart
difference scores on warned and unwarned
for each condition from group two.


rate
trials









Warned


HR


Difference


Response
e Data


1 S1 2 3 S2 4 5 6


Second


Indicates:
---


Stimulus Judged-Stimulus Received


noise-noise
noise-puff


-...m-.-.
1--1A1--


puff-noise
puff-puff


Unwarned


HR


Difference


Response
Data


*




















Figure


Heart Rate: Experiment II, Grp 3. Heart
difference scores on warned and unwarned
for each condition from group three.


rate
trials














Warned


I
a I
I I
* I
I I


I
I I
I I
I S
I I
a a
* I
I I
I I
I S
I I
I
II
I 'h I

I
I I
I I
1. g
a I
4*

I I
I *


p 1-


Second


HR


Indicates:


Stimulus Judged-Stimulus Received


noise-noise

noise-puff


-* *.I. .
-...D---
... ..


* A *


puff-nofin

puff-puff


puff-puf


Unwarned


Difference


Response
Data


Difference


Response


Data


p


HR


*


13


I*


HR


Second









airpuff


discrimination


than


noise.


Performance


on airpuff


discrimination


was


significantly


worse


than


that


on noise


stimuli


(1/14)


= 14.02,


.01).


The


effect


sequence


order


did


not


achieve


significance


Heart


Rate


The


heart


rate


data


are


presented


separately


each


group


figures


10 and


may


be readily


observed,


the


pattern


group.


found


On warned


overall


trials


only,


analy


prior


ses


the


common


reflex


to each


stimulus


a deceleration


occurs


in all


conditions.


An acceleration


occurs


after


the


reflex


stimulus


conditions


whether


or not


a warning


stimulus


was


present.


The


deceleration


reflected


analyses


of seconds


one


through


four.


For


group


one,


an ANOVA


shows


main


effects


warning


(1/15)


32.52,


= 8.27,


.001),


.025),


a Warning


of linear


X Linear


seconds


Second


(1/15)


interaction


(1/15)


.34,


.025).


For


group


two,


linear


trend


across


seconds


was


significant


(1/15)


= 8.35,


.025)


and


a subsequent


analysis


of unwarned


trials


only


failed


find


any


linear


trend


across


seconds


indicating


that


the


acceleration


occurs


only


on warned


trial


For


group


three,


main


effects


of linear


seconds









(1/15)


= 6.49,


.025)


Warning


X Quadratic


Seconds


= 5.21,


.05)


interactions


reached


significance


Anal


yses


the


acce


rations


subsequent


the


refl


stimulus,


across


seconds


through


are


complicated


their


slopes


and


points


of origin


differ


For


group


one,


analy


ses


reveal


a main


effect


linear


Warning


seconds


X Linear


= 35.28,


Seconds


.001),


= 6.29,


as well


.025),


Stimulus


X Warning


X Linear


Seconds


(1/1


= 6.44,


.025)


interactions,


with


greater


variance


found


among


attend-noise


than


attend-puff


trials


producing


Attention


Stimulus


X Stimulus


X Linear


(1/15)


Seconds


= 5.29,


(1/15


.05)


.07,


and


.025)


interactions.


group


two,


a significant


linear


trend


across


seconds


(1/1


= 24


.001)


and


a Warning


X Linear


Seconds


interaction


(1/15


= 5.97,


.05)


appear


group


three


, a main


effect


of linear


seco


(1/15)

(1/15)


- 43.95,

= 14.05,


.001)


.01)


and

and


Warning

Attention


X Linear


X Stimulus


Seconds


X Linear


Seconds


interactions


1/15


.65,


.01)


reach


signifi


chance.


While


a number


erac


tions


did


reach


significance


the


anal


yses


of seconds


through


, there









acceleration


after


the


reflex


stimulus


which


was


found


the


overall


analysis.


Blink


Probability


Remaining


above


0.8,


blink


probability


was


high


throughout


the


experiment.


However,


the


probability


response


to a cutaneous


stimulus


appears


more


stable


than


that


an acoustic


one


This


produces


a number


interactions


individual


analyses.


For


group


one,


analysis


variance


revealed


significant


.05).


main


Inspection


effect


of attention


of figure


suggests


(1/15) =

that this


.84,


effect


was


due


to the


relatively


lower


response


probability


acoustic


stimuli,


especially


the


attend-noise


condition.


Indeed


the


Attention


X Stimulus


interaction


(1/15)


3.74,


.07)


was


significant


at a marginal


confidence


level.


For


group


two,


analysis


of blink


probability


revealed


no significant


main


effects


interactions.


Inspection


probability


results


suggests


that


omission


the


warning


stimulus


produced


a smaller


response


probability


both


eliciting


stimuli,


but


only


the


attend-puff


condition.


This


suggestion


is support


the


Attention


Warning


interaction


(1/15)


.87,


.07)


which


was


significant


at a marginal


confidence


level.