Background autonomic activity and "Analytic Perception."

Hustmyer, Frank E.; Karnes, Edward W.

doi:10.1037/h0042711

Cited by 13 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 5 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The positive correlation between EFT scores and reaction time indicates that field dependent Ss reacted faster in making detections and false detections than did field independent Ss. While this finding does not agree with Thorton et al (1968), it does support the relationship found between field dependence and arousal level (Hustmyer & Karnes, 1964). It has been found that field dependent Ss show higher autonomic activity-and, therefore, higher arousal level-than field independent Ss.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 73%

Vigilance performance under hypoxia.

Cahoon¹

1970

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 73%

Vigilance performance under hypoxia.

Cahoon¹

1970

Journal of Applied Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…EDR stabiles recalled approximately 50% more words than did labiles. Other studies have shown EDR stabiles to be superior to labiles in the spatial manipulation of geometric figures: Stabiles require less time to extract simpler figures from more complex designs in an embedded figures test (Hustmyer and Karnes 1964) and are more accurate in matching a target cube to a correctly rotated alternative (Schulter and Papousek 1992). Stabiles also more quickly recognize whether a complex figure matches one of two items held in working memory (Zimmer et al 1990).…”

Section: Supporting Evidencementioning

confidence: 94%

Personality and Electrodermal Response Lability: An Interpretation

Crider

2008

Appl Psychophysiol Biofeedback

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Electrodermal response (EDR) lability is a psychophysiological trait reflecting stable individual differences in electrodermal activation as indexed by frequency measures of phasic EDR activity. There is no consistent evidence that EDR lability reflects dispositional or clinical anxiety. However, EDR lability appears to be related to individual differences in the overt expression of emotional and antagonistic impulses. Greater EDR lability is associated with a relatively undemonstrative and agreeable disposition, whereas greater EDR stability is associated with a relatively expressive and antagonistic disposition. The inverse relationship between EDR lability and the expression of emotional and antagonistic impulses suggests that EDR lability may reflect individual differences in the effortful control of such expression. This hypothesis is consistent with cognitive effort interpretations of phasic EDR activity, with evidence of the sensitivity of phasic EDR activity to capacity-demanding tasks, and with evidence of reduced spare capacity among EDR labile individuals under cognitive challenge. Individual differences in effortful self-control may explain the association of greater EDR lability with essential hypertension and greater EDR stability with forms of antisocial behavior.

show abstract

“…Field-independent subjects display autonomic patterns that differentiate meaningful from nonmeaningful stimuli better than do the autonomic patterns of field-dependent subjects (Courter, Wattenmaker, & Ax, 1965;Hein, Cohen, & Shmavonian, 1964;Pillsbury, Meyerowitz, Salzman, & Satran, 1967). Field-independent subjects also exhibit faster autonomic conditioning in a classical conditioning paradigm (Hein et al, 1964(Hein et al, , 1966, greater autonomic "stability" (Block, 1957;Hustmeyer & Karnes, 1964), greater and more prolonged galvanic skin responsivity to specific external stimuli as well as basal resistance decreases (S. I. Cohen, 1967;S.…”

Section: Attempts To Deal With Individualmentioning

confidence: 99%