Mental effort and affective primes: Testing if effects arise due to induced affect

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruta Lasauskaite ◽  
Guido H. E. Gendolla ◽  
Nicolas Silvestrini
Keyword(s):  
2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (2) ◽  
pp. 305-308
Author(s):  
Fabiana Martinescu-Bădălan

AbstractThis work is designed to challenge the maintenance of the highest standards of physical training required to perform armed tasks. It is desired to accumulate a development experience that will culminate with the set upof very well-trained leaders. The training of the military is based on physical training. It ensures the possibility and availability of the military to cope with combat missions, obligations in the military environment, ensures the maintenance and development of resistance to intense physical and mental effort, and develops self-confidence and teamwork. The physical training considers the fulfillment of some general objectives and of some specific objectives, absolutely necessary in the conditions of carrying out the combat actions.


2020 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 1055-1072 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tamara van Gog ◽  
Vincent Hoogerheide ◽  
Milou van Harsel

Abstract Problem-solving tasks form the backbone of STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics) curricula. Yet, how to improve self-monitoring and self-regulation when learning to solve problems has received relatively little attention in the self-regulated learning literature (as compared with, for instance, learning lists of items or learning from expository texts). Here, we review research on fostering self-regulated learning of problem-solving tasks, in which mental effort plays an important role. First, we review research showing that having students engage in effortful, generative learning activities while learning to solve problems can provide them with cues that help them improve self-monitoring and self-regulation at an item level (i.e., determining whether or not a certain type of problem needs further study/practice). Second, we turn to self-monitoring and self-regulation at the task sequence level (i.e., determining what an appropriate next problem-solving task would be given the current level of understanding/performance). We review research showing that teaching students to regulate their learning process by taking into account not only their performance but also their invested mental effort on a prior task when selecting a new task improves self-regulated learning outcomes (i.e., performance on a knowledge test in the domain of the study). Important directions for future research on the role of mental effort in (improving) self-monitoring and self-regulation at the item and task selection levels are discussed after the respective sections.


2013 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 39-54 ◽  
Author(s):  
Assaf Botzer ◽  
Joachim Meyer ◽  
Yisrael Parmet
Keyword(s):  

1991 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 335-339 ◽  
Author(s):  
B. Winn ◽  
B. Gilmartin ◽  
L. C. Mortimer ◽  
N. R. Edwards
Keyword(s):  

Author(s):  
Joseph K. Nuamah ◽  
Younho Seong

Psychophysiological measures can be used to determine whether a particular display produces a general difference in brain function. Such information might be valuable in efforts to improve usability in display design. In this preliminary study, we aimed to use the electroencephalography (EEG) task load index (TLI), given by the ratio of mean frontal midline theta energy to mean parietal alpha energy, to provide insight into the mental effort required by participants performing intuition-inducing and analysis-inducing tasks. We employed behavioral measures (reaction time and percent correct), and a subjective measure (NASA-Task Load Index) to validate the objective measure (TLI). The results we obtained were consistent with our hypothesis that mental effort required for analysis-inducing tasks would be different from that required for intuition-inducing tasks. Although our sample size was small, we were able to obtain a significant positive correlation between NASA-Task Load Index and TLI.


2014 ◽  
Vol 03 (01) ◽  
pp. 39-53
Author(s):  
Anthony J. Leggett

The main guiding principles I have used are the following. First, it is much more important that the English written by Japanese authors be clear and easily readable than that it be elegant. Therefore, in a situation where there is a choice between an elegant form of expression which, however, may easily lead to confusion if misused and a less elegant but practically "foolproof" one, I have never hesitated to recommend the latter. Secondly, the importance of avoiding a mistake is roughly proportional to the amount of misunderstanding it may entail and/or the amount of psychological "wear and tear" it may cause on the reader's nerves. Accordingly, I have spent a good deal of space on "macroscopic" points like sentence construction, and proportionately less on "microscopic" ones like the correct use of "a" and "the"; prepositions, which most Japanese writers seem to consider a major point of difficulty in writing English, I have scarcely mentioned, not only because this is the sort of point for which one can easily refer to dictionaries but because I believe the reader can usually correct any mistakes for himself with very little mental effort. Thirdly, the usefulness of a set of notes such as this is much reduced if the rules given become too complicated. Therefore, rather than give a complicated set of rules which would ensure correctness 100% of the time, I have often preferred to give a simple rule which will be right 95% of the time, provided that in the other 5% of cases, it is unlikely to lead to confusion. I do not claim that anyone who tries to follow the advice given here will write beautiful or even invariably correct English; but I hope that what he writes will be clear and readable and that any mistakes he does make will be minor ones.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document