The "Quiet Eye" and Motor Performance: Task Demands Matter!

Evidence suggests that superior motor performance coincides with a longer duration of the last fixation before movement initiation, an observation called “quiet eye” (QE). Although the empirical findings over the last two decades underline the robustness of the phenomenon, little is known about its functional role in motor performance. Therefore, a novel paradigm is introduced, testing QE duration as an independent variable by experimentally manipulating the onset of the last fixation before movement unfolding. Furthermore, this paradigm is employed to investigate the functional mechanisms behind the QE phenomenon by manipulating the predictability of the target position and thereby the amount of information to be processed over the QE period. The results further support the assumption that QE affects motor performance, with experimentally prolonged QE durations increasing accuracy in a throwing task. However, it is only under a high information-processing load that a longer QE duration is beneficial for throwing performance. Therefore, the optimization of information processing, particularly in motor execution, turns out to be a promising candidate for explaining QE benefits on a functional level.

Effects of task modality, length and complexity on time for activities in lucid dreams

Introduction: Nocturnal dreams can be considered as a kind of simulation of the real world on a higher cognitive level (Erlacher & Schredl, 2008). Within lucid dreams, the dreamer is aware of the dream state and thus able to control the ongoing dream content. Previous studies could demonstrate that it is possible to practice motor tasks during lucid dreams and doing so improved performance while awake (Erlacher & Schredl, 2010). Even though lucid dream practice might be a promising kind of cognitive rehearsal in sports, little is known about the characteristics of actions in lucid dreams. The purpose of the present study was to explore the relationship between time in dreams and wakefulness because in an earlier study (Erlacher & Schredl, 2004) we found that performing squads took lucid dreamers 44.5 % more time than in the waking state while for counting the same participants showed no differences between dreaming and wakefulness. To find out if the task modality, the task length or the task complexity require longer times in lucid dreams than in wakefulness three experiments were conducted. Methods: In the first experiment five proficient lucid dreamers spent two to three non-consecutive nights in the sleep laboratory with polysomnographic recording to control for REM sleep and determine eye signals. Participants counted from 1-10, 1-20 and 1-30 in wakefulness and in their lucid dreams. While dreaming they marked onset of lucidity as well as beginning and end of the counting task with a Left-Right-Left-Right eye movement and reported their dreams after being awakened. The same procedure was used for the second experiment with seven lucid dreamers except that they had to walk 10, 20 or 30 steps. In the third experiment nine participants performed an exercise involving gymnastics elements such as various jumps and a roll. To control for length of the task the gymnastic exercise in the waking state lasted about the same time as walking 10 steps. Results: As a general result we found – as in the study before – that performing a task in the lucid dream requires more time than in wakefulness. This tendency was found for all three tasks. However, there was no difference for the task modality (counting vs. motor task). Also the relative time for the different lengths of the tasks showed no difference. And finally, the more complex motor task (gymnastic routine) did not require more time in lucid dreams than the simple motor task. Discussion/Conclusion: The results showed that there is a robust effect of time in lucid dreams compared to wakefulness. The three experiments could not explain that those differences are caused by task modality, task length or task complexity. Therefore further possible candidates needs to be investigated e.g. experience in lucid dreaming or psychological variables. References: Erlacher, D. & Schredl, M. (2010). Practicing a motor task in a lucid dream enhances subsequent performance: A pilot study. The Sport Psychologist, 24(2), 157-167. Erlacher, D. & Schredl, M. (2008). Do REM (lucid) dreamed and executed actions share the same neural substrate? International Journal of Dream Research, 1(1), 7-13. Erlacher, D. & Schredl, M. (2004). Time required for motor activity in lucid dreams. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 99, 1239-1242.

Report to the Provost from the Task Force to Review Dialogues on Diversity

One of the action items arising from the work of the Campus Climate Implementation Team and the President’s Advisory Committee on Diversity was a request from the President to the Provost to review the Dialogues on Diversity course. The Provost instructed this Task Force to review the current Dialogues on Diversity course to determine how it should be continued for optimal impact and to determine whether it is appropriate to add a “Dialogues—Part 2” to the curriculum. The Provost’s charge to the Task Force also asked for recommendations that include details on the following components of the current program: goals and objectives of the revised course administration and recommended department home for the revised course possibility of and need for a second course optimal coordination with other programs/initiatives on campus.

Self-motion perception influences number processing: evidence from a parity task

We investigated the role of horizontal body motion on the processing of numbers. We hypothesized that leftward self-motion leads to shifts in spatial attention and therefore facilitates the processing of small numbers, and vice versa, we expected that rightward self-motion facilitates the processing of large numbers. Participants were displaced by means of a motion platform during a parity judgment task. We found a systematic influence of self-motion direction on number processing, suggesting that the processing of numbers is intertwined with the processing of self-motion perception. The results differed from known spatial numerical compatibility effects in that self-motion exerted a differential influence on inner and outer numbers of the given interval. The results highlight the involvement of sensory body motion information in higher-order spatial cognition.

More than a surprise: The bivalency effect in task switching

When switching tasks, if stimuli are presented that contain features that cue two of the tasks in the set (i.e., bivalent stimuli), performance slowing is observed on all tasks. This generalized slowing extends to tasks in the set which have no features in common with the bivalent stimulus and is referred to as the bivalency effect. In previous work, the bivalency effect was invoked by presenting occasionally occurring bivalent stimuli; therefore, the possibility that the generalized slowing is simply due to surprise (as opposed to bivalency) has not yet been discounted. This question was addressed in two task switching experiments where the occasionally occurring stimuli were either bivalent (bivalent version) or merely surprising (surprising version). The results confirmed that the generalized slowing was much greater in the bivalent version of both experiments, demonstrating that the magnitude of this effect is greater than can be accounted for by simple surprise. This set of results confirms that slowing task execution when encountering bivalent stimuli may be fundamental for efficient task switching, as adaptive tuning of response style may serve to prepare the cognitive system for possible future high conflict trials.