The effects of preceding stimuli on the judgments of current stimuli were examined in a study using absolute judgments of loudness with feedback. It

The rate of blinking is related to certain mental activities. One common feature of states associated with low blink rates is the presence of concentrated cognitive activity. The purpose of the present study was to determine how blinking is affected by variations in mental load; it was hypothesized that, for a given nonvisual task, blinking would decrease as mental load increased. The first study reported here manipulated memory load by requiring Ss to retain a sequence of 4, 6, or 8 digits. The second study involved mental arithmetic under time pressure; half the trials contained zeros in the sequence of numbers to be summed. In both studies the rate of blinking was low when mental load was high and the rate was high when mental load was low. It is speculated that blinking may disrupt certain cognitive processes and may therefore be inhibited when these processes are active. When mental load is increased, the inhibition of blinking may be an adaptive mechanism which protects vulnerable cognitive processes from interference.

Blinking is related to certain cognitive processes. For example, individuals “punctuate” their speech by blinking between phrases and at the end of sentences. Daydreaming is associated with low rates of blinking. Blinking occurs between fixations and may be timed so as not to interfere with significant visual input. Apparently, blinking occurs at transitions between internal events and is inhibited at other times. In the experiment reported here, blinking was measured while the activity of operational memory was manipulated with mental load kept constant. The rate of blinking was significantly reduced when the cognitive operation of internal counting was being performed. It is inferred that the blink rate is low when information in memory is being operated on. To suspend blinking during certain cognitive activities would be adaptive if blinking disrupts them. Since the blackout period of the blink produces a rapid change in visual level, blinking disrupts those cognitive processes utilizing display areas accessible to visual input. Operational memory and the visual imagination may share components with the visual perceptual system. To protect these vulnerable processes from interference, blinking may be inhibited when they are active.

In an effort to understand some of the functional determinants of naming, Koehler's maluma-takete demonstration was examined in two studies, to see whether the matching of the nonsense words and nonsense figures could be accounted for on the basis of physiognomic similarity, as measured by the semantic differential. Matching was found to occur overwhelmingly in the expected direction, and the similarity of semantic differential locations of matched pairs was far greater than that of non-matched pairs. This held strikingly for “literal” scales (such as “Angular-Rounded”) but also held to a lesser extent for clearly “non-literal” scales (such as “Fresh-Stale”), indicating that physiognomic properties over and beyond simple literal description of the stimuli were involved. Study of the semantic differential locations of letters composing the nonsense words, and of ratings of the “fittingness” of the letters as names for the nonsense figures, showed that the physiognomic similarity presumably mediating the naming phenomenon may, at least in the Koehler demonstration, reside in the individual letters rather than in some emergent quality of the whole word. All in all, the study attempted to go beyond just checking whether a “fittingness” phenomenon occurs in naming, by exploring processes hypothesized to underlie the “fittingness.” In at least some cases, physiognomic similarity may be the psychological process mediating naming.

Performance of two pigeons given tasks in discriminating colors was examined on trials before and after they had occasionally received rewards for pecking when exposed to light of specific wavelengths. After a reward, the probability that the birds would respond to light svtimuli that were never rewarded was higher than before the reward was given, but paradoxically the birds showed no general decline in their ability to differentiate between stimuli at wavelengths 1 millimicron apart.