Anticipatory changes in state, dual-process theory, and preliminary OR processes

Abstract

Recent studies of phasic response fractionation in the OR context have led to a theoretical development of the multiregister model of Barry (1979), which emphasizes the role of preliminary processes in OR elicitation. In this new model (e.g., Barry, 1981b), the novelty and magnitude of the stimulus are coded in separate registers which are similar in their operating characteristics to the hypothetical processes Hand S of dual-process theory (Groves & Thompson, 1970), and which interact to produce the OR. The present study examined the parallel between S and the stimulus magnitude register by manipulating anticipatory cardiac arousal between stimuli. A warned target stimulus was predicted to provide a context of enhanced cardiac arousal in comparison with a warned nontarget. The predicted S effect was obtained in the peripheral pulse amplitude response (PPAR), an index of the magnitude register. This and other results of response fractionation support the new model of preIiminary OR processes. The results also bear upon recent findings of inconsistent habituation with PPAR measures.

Single-trial event-related potentials and the orienting reflex to monaural tones

“…Parametric testing of Sokolov's core OR characteristics with autonomic and EEG measures showed inconsistencies in relation to this unitary perspective (e.g., Barry, 1977aBarry, ,b, 1978Barry, , 1979Barry, , 1982aBarry and James, 1981a,b;Maltzman et al, 1979;Ray et al, 1977;Siddle and Heron, 1977). For example, Barry (1977aBarry ( ,b, 1978 examined the stimulus-response patterns for respiratory pause, peripheral and cephalic pulse amplitude responses, electrodermal response, changes in heart rate (HR), and EEG alpha desynchronisation.…”

Cognitive processing effects on auditory event-related potentials and the evoked cardiac response

“…Thus, with increased task requirements, an additional acceleratory component occurs (ECR2), and this component has been identified as a marker of cognitive load or ongoing information processing, relative to the task involved (e.g. Barry, 1982;Barry and Tremayne, 1987;Jennings and Hall, 1980;Kaiser et al, 2001). Based on this research, the biphasic ECR is taken here as the sum of two independent response components, reflecting different aspects of information processing.…”