Responses to 'meaningful' and 'meaningless' sounds.

Rc, Davis

doi:10.1037/h0062266

Cited by 21 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Significance therefore simply adds another dimension to the stimulus, not inherently different in its influence from the others. Thirty years ago, R. C. Davis (1948) considered this issue, wondering whether the addition of meaning to a stimulus, as by requiring that a prescribed response be made, altered the stimulus in any special way.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Orienting Response as Novelty and Significance Detector: Reply to O'Gorman

Bernstein

1979

Psychophysiology

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

O'Goiman's (1979) criticisms of the orienting response (OR) significance hypothesis are not well‐founded. The hypothesis is not based solely on electrodermal data—studies reporting significance effects for heart rate and pupillary OR are cited. The hypothesis does not discard novelty but suggests that an interaction between uncertainty and significance triggers OR. Differential reactivity across OR components reflects stimulus‐ and individual‐response factors, and does not require separate “significance registers.” Since the hypothesis specifically maintains that appraisals of stimulus significance affect the OR, not the mere fact of cognitive appraisal per se, no general “cognitive appraisal effect” was ever expected. O'Gorman confuses the difficulty of estimating the subject's spontaneous judgments of significance with the relative ease of manipulating significance in the laboratory. He considers classic OR theory more “objective” only because he fails to look closely enough at the complex judgmental processes involved in stimulus intake, model building, and matching functions. O'Gorman's contentions of different initial‐ and test‐ORs, and of a simple additive relationship between significance and OR, lack supportive data and are challenged by available evidence. Literature is cited suggesting that: a) scanning is continuously biased toward the detection of significant stimuli; b) detection of a sgnificant stimulus feature triggers increased information scanning, increasing the possibility that previously unrecognized uncertainty will be detected, and c) lowers the criterion level of the OR “threshold,” increasing the likelihood of OR if uncertainty is detected. Evidence is cited suggesting that the significance‐OR, and perhaps attention in general, is mediated by neocortical‐limbic interaction, the limbic' “motivational” evaluator of stimulus input steering and switching neocortical “intellectual” analyzers of stimulus pattern.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Orienting Response as Novelty and Significance Detector: Reply to O'Gorman

Bernstein

1979

Psychophysiology

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Apparatus.-The apparatus and techniques of recording and electrode placement were similar to those reported elsewhere by Davis (2,3,4,6,7). The stimuli for the CS and US were produced by two Hewlett-Packard audio oscillators; a CS of 850 cps and a UCS of 1,000 cps delivered through a loud-speaker.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This, when transposed into percentage of the prestimulus level, is a 150% response. The prestimulus level was determined by taking the highest integration from integrations 5, 4, 3, and 2 preceding the stimulus onset, and the a response level was determined by taking the highest integration from integrations 3, 4, 5, and 6 following stimulus onset (6).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Characteristics of the muscle tension response to paired tones.

Liere¹

1953

Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been found with the various sense modalities and under varying experimental conditions that the repeated presentation of a given stimulus generally alters in some way the manner in which S responds to that stimulus, whether S be animal or human. Conditioning is a case in point. The manner in which the response undergoes change may be measured in terms of the latency of the response, the frequency of response, the amplitude of the response. Any one of these or any combination of them may undergo an evolutionary alteration. These changes have usually been studied in terms of an overt response. But the persistent question has been raised whether an overt response is necessary to conditioning. Association theory of the stimulusstimulus variety suggests there need not be any kind of overt response when conditioning occurs (21). 3 We seem to have a nonovert response in the muscle tension reflex induced by an auditory stimulus. Davis has determined that a measurable EMG can be produced with near-threshold stimuli, and in his discussion of results advances as one of his explanatory prin-1 This paper is based on a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, in the

show abstract

“…It is likely that this session was in preparation for a series of studies that addressed the classic work of Landis and Hunt (1939) on the startle response (Davis, 1948b(Davis, , 1948c(Davis, , 1950Davis & Van Liere, 1949).…”

Section: The Davis Laboratorymentioning

confidence: 99%