Toward a reconceptualization of the law of initial value.

Jin, Putai

doi:10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.176

Cited by 79 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 94 publications

(146 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, even when no relationship exists between the baseline (x) and the change ( y − x), the fact that x is present in both terms leads to an expected spurious correlation of −.7 between x and y − x (Tu & Gilthorpe, 2007). To address these issues and rule out regression to the mean as an alternative explanation for the observed relationship between baseline AB magnitude and the change in AB magnitude induced by atDCS, we applied a procedure designed to test the equality of variances between the two conditions (Tu & Gilthorpe, 2007;Jin, 1992;Myrtek & Foerster, 1986). If participants with a large AB indeed benefit from atDCS whereas participants with a small AB suffer, the variance of AB scores during baseline testing should be significantly higher than that during atDCS.…”

Section: Individual Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation over Left Dorsolateral pFC on the Attentional Blink Depend on Individual Baseline Performance

London

Slagter

2015

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract■ Selection mechanisms that dynamically gate only relevant perceptual information for further processing and sustained representation in working memory are critical for goal-directed behavior. We examined whether this gating process can be modulated by anodal transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) over left dorsolateral pFC (DLPFC)-a region known to play a key role in working memory and conscious access. Specifically, we examined the effects of tDCS on the magnitude of the so-called "attentional blink" (AB), a deficit in identifying the second of two targets presented in rapid succession. Thirtyfour participants performed a standard AB task before (baseline), during, and after 20 min of 1-mA anodal and cathodal tDCS in two separate sessions. On the basis of previous reports linking individual differences in AB magnitude to individual differences in DLPFC activity and on suggestions that effects of tDCS depend on baseline brain activity levels, we hypothesized that anodal tDCS over left DLPFC would modulate the magnitude of the AB as a function of individual baseline AB magnitude. Indeed, individual differences' analyses revealed that anodal tDCS decreased the AB in participants with a large baseline AB but increased the AB in participants with a small baseline AB. This effect was only observed during (but not after) stimulation, was not found for cathodal tDCS, and could not be explained by regression to the mean. Notably, the effects of tDCS were not apparent at the group level, highlighting the importance of taking individual variability in performance into account when evaluating the effectiveness of tDCS. These findings support the idea that left DLPFC plays a critical role in the AB and in conscious access more generally. They are also in line with the notion that there is an optimal level of prefrontal activity for cognitive function, with both too little and too much activity hurting performance. ■

show abstract

Section: Individual Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation over Left Dorsolateral pFC on the Attentional Blink Depend on Individual Baseline Performance

London

Slagter

2015

Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This difference score was converted to a percentage of the corresponding baseline value. This conversion was warranted by Jin's (1992) revised version of the so-called Law of Initial Value (LIV), which states that within the middle range of baseline values, the physiological response increases as a function of baseline. This version of the LIV was applicable to our data, because there was a positive overall correlation between baseline pupil size and peak dilation (r = .53).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pupil dilation in response preparation

Moresi

Adam

Rijcken

et al. 2008

International Journal of Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examined changes in pupil size during response preparation in a finger-cuing task. Based on the Grouping Model of finger preparation [Adam, J.J., Hommel, B. and Umiltà, C., 2003b. Preparing for perception and action (I): the role of grouping in the response-cuing paradigm. Cognitive Psychology. 46, (3), 302-358.; Adam, J.J., Hommel, B. and Umiltà, C., 2005. Preparing for perception and action (II) Automatic and effortfull Processes in Response cuing. Visual Cognition. 12, (8), 1444-1473.], it was hypothesized that the selection and preparation of more difficult response sets would be accompanied by larger pupillary dilations. The results supported this prediction, thereby extending the validity of pupil size as a measure of cognitive load to the domain of response preparation.

show abstract

“…The percent‐change approach appears to have emerged to adjust for LIV in the form proposed by Jin and others (Jin, 1992; Myrtek & Foerster, 1986). For startle potentiation, this would be appropriate if the input from the modulatory circuit was positive and multiplicative.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Empirically based comparisons of the reliability and validity of common quantification approaches for eyeblink startle potentiation in humans

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Startle potentiation is a well‐validated translational measure of negative affect. Startle potentiation is widely used in clinical and affective science, and there are multiple approaches for its quantification. The three most commonly used approaches quantify startle potentiation as the increase in startle response from a neutral to threat condition based on (1) raw potentiation, (2) standardized potentiation, or (3) percent‐change potentiation. These three quantification approaches may yield qualitatively different conclusions about effects of independent variables (IVs) on affect when within‐ or between‐group differences exist for startle response in the neutral condition. Accordingly, we directly compared these quantification approaches in a shock‐threat task using four IVs known to influence startle response in the no‐threat condition: probe intensity, time (i.e., habituation), alcohol administration, and individual differences in general startle reactivity measured at baseline. We confirmed the expected effects of time, alcohol, and general startle reactivity on affect using self‐reported fear/anxiety as a criterion. The percent‐change approach displayed apparent artifact across all four IVs, which raises substantial concerns about its validity. Both raw and standardized potentiation approaches were stable across probe intensity and time, which supports their validity. However, only raw potentiation displayed effects that were consistent with a priori specifications and/or the self‐report criterion for the effects of alcohol and general startle reactivity. Supplemental analyses of reliability and validity for each approach provided additional evidence in support of raw potentiation.

show abstract

Toward a reconceptualization of the law of initial value.

Cited by 79 publications

References 94 publications

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation over Left Dorsolateral pFC on the Attentional Blink Depend on Individual Baseline Performance

Effects of Transcranial Direct Current Stimulation over Left Dorsolateral pFC on the Attentional Blink Depend on Individual Baseline Performance

Pupil dilation in response preparation

Empirically based comparisons of the reliability and validity of common quantification approaches for eyeblink startle potentiation in humans

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About