Do you know where your arm is if you think your head has moved?

Reproduction of a previously presented elbow position is affected by changes in head position. As movement of the head is associated with local biomechanical changes, the aim of the present study was to determine if illusory changes in head position could induce similar effects on the reproduction of elbow position. Galvanic vestibular stimulation (GVS) was applied to healthy subjects in supine lying. The stimulus was applied during the presentation of an elbow position, which the subject then reproduced without stimulation. In the first study, 13 subjects received 1.5 mA stimuli, which caused postural sway in standing, confirming that the firing of vestibular afferents was affected, but no illusory changes in head position were reported. In the second study, 13 subjects received 2.0-3.0 mA GVS. Six out of 13 subjects reported consistent illusory changes in head position, away from the side of the anode. In these subjects, anode right stimulation induced illusory left lateral flexion and elbow joint position error towards extension (p=0.03), while anode left tended to have the opposite effect (p=0.16). The GVS had no effect on error in subjects who did not experience illusory head movement with either 1.5 mA stimulus (p=0.8) or 2.0-3.0 mA stimulus (p=0.7). This study demonstrates that the accuracy of elbow repositioning is affected by illusory changes in head position. These results support the hypothesis that the perceived position of proximal body segments is used in the planning and performance of accurate upper limb movements.

The effects of assessment type on verbal ratings of conditional stimulus valence and contingency judgments: Implications for the extinction of evaluative learning

Recent research on causal learning found (a) that causal judgments reflect either the current predictive value of a conditional stimulus (CS) or an integration across the experimental contingencies used in the entire experiment and (b) that postexperimental judgments, rather than the CS's current predictive value, are likely to reflect this integration. In the current study, the authors examined whether verbal valence ratings were subject to similar integration. Assessments of stimulus valence and contingencies responded similarly to variations of reporting requirements, contingency reversal, and extinction, reflecting either current or integrated values. However, affective learning required more trials to reflect a contingency change than did contingency judgments. The integration of valence assessments across training and the fact that affective learning is slow to reflect contingency changes can provide an alternative interpretation for researchers' previous failures to find an effect of extinction training on verbal reports of CS valence.

The role of uncertainty in the relationship between fairness evaluations and willingness to pay

Participants in contingent valuation studies may be uncertain about a number of aspects of the policy and survey context. The uncertainty management model of fairness judgments states that individuals will evaluate a policy in terms of its fairness when they do not know whether they can trust the relevant managing authority or experience uncertainty due to insufficient knowledge of the general issues surrounding the environmental policy. Similarly, some researchers have suggested that, not knowing how to answer WTP questions, participants convey their general attitudes toward the public good rather than report well-defined economic preferences. These contentions were investigated in a sample of 840 residents in four urban catchments across Australia who were interviewed about their WTP for stormwater pollution abatement. Four sources of uncertainty were measured: amount of prior issue-related thought, trustworthiness of the water authority, insufficient scenario information, and WTP response uncertainty. A logistic regression model was estimated in each subsample to test the main effects of the uncertainty sources on WTP as well as their interaction with fairness and proenvironmental attitudes. Results indicated support for the uncertainty management model in only one of the four samples. Similarly, proenvironmental attitudes interacted rarely with uncertainty to a significant level, and in ways that were more complex than hypothesised. It was concluded that uncertain individuals were generally not more likely than other participants to draw on either fairness evaluations or proenvironmental attitudes when making decisions about paying for stormwater pollution abatement.