Study on resistance characteristics of submarine near water surface

The submarine is usually affected by free surface and the navigation resistance increases when sailing near the surface. In order to study the specific resistance characteristics of submarine sailing near the surface, the SUBOFF with appendages was taken as the research object, and the calculation model was built based on Star CCM+ fluid simulation software, and the resistance coefficients under different submarine depths and speeds were calculated. Through comparative analysis, the influence of the depth and speed of the submarine on the resistance components was obtained, and the cause of the formation was analyzed. The results show that the influence of the depth of submarine on friction resistance coefficient is small in general. With the increase of the depth of the submarine, the pressure resistance coefficient decreases, and the wave amplitude decreases. The shear wave of Kelvin wave system is more obvious and the effect of scattering is weakened, which is of great significance for the study of submarine concealment. With the increase of speed, friction resistance coefficient decreases, the overall change trend of pressure resistance coefficient is first increased and then decreases. The interference effect between free surface and hull increases first and then decreases at each depth. The wave shape changes and resistance results mutually confirm. The free surface mainly generates waves by interacting with the hull, which affects the resistance characteristics of the submarine. The interference effect is greatly affected by the depth and speed of the submarine.

Decoupling countermands nonselective response inhibition during selective stopping

Response inhibition is essential for goal-directed behavior within dynamic environments. Selective stopping is a complex form of response inhibition where only part of a multi-effector response must be cancelled. A substantial response delay emerges on unstopped effectors when a cued effector is successfully stopped. This stopping-interference effect is indicative of nonselective response inhibition during selective stopping which may, in-part, be a consequence of functional coupling. The present study examined selective stopping of (de)coupled bimanual responses in healthy human participants of either sex. Participants performed synchronous and asynchronous versions of an anticipatory stop-signal paradigm across two sessions while mu (µ) and beta (β) rhythm were measured with electroencephalography. Results showed that responses were behaviorally decoupled during asynchronous go trials and the extent of response asynchrony was associated with lateralized sensorimotor µ and β desynchronization during response preparation. Selective stopping produced a stopping-interference effect and was marked by a nonselective increase and subsequent rebound in prefrontal and sensorimotor β. In support of the coupling account, stopping-interference was smaller during selective stopping of asynchronous responses, and negatively associated with the magnitude of decoupling. However, the increase in sensorimotor β during selective stopping was equivalent between the stopped and unstopped hand irrespective of response synchrony. Overall, the findings demonstrate that decoupling facilitates selective stopping after a global pause process and emphasizes the importance of considering the influence of both the go and stop context when investigating response inhibition.

Simple contextual cueing prevents retroactive interference in short-term perceptual training of orientation detection tasks

Perceptual training of multiple tasks suffers from interference between the trained tasks. Here, we conducted four psychophysical experiments with separate groups of participants to investigate the possibility of preventing the interference in short-term perceptual training. We trained the participants to detect two orientations of Gabor stimuli in two adjacent days at the same retinal location and examined the interference of training effects between the two orientations. The results showed significant retroactive interference from the second orientation to the first orientation (Experiments 1 and 2). Introducing a 6-hour interval between the pre-test and training of the second orientation did not eliminate the interference effect, excluding the interpretation of disrupted reconsolidation as the pre-test of the second orientation may reactivate and destabilize the representation of the first orientation (Experiment 3). Finally, the training of the two orientations was accompanied by fixations in two colors, each served as a contextual cue for one orientation. The results showed that the retroactive interference was not evident after introducing these passively perceived contextual cues (Experiment 4). Our findings suggest that the retroactive interference effect in short-term perceptual training of orientation detection tasks was likely the result of higher-level factors such as shared contextual cues embedded in the tasks. The effect of multiple perceptual training could be facilitated by associating the trained tasks with different contextual cues.

Is There Semantic Conflict in the Stroop Task?

This research addressed current controversies concerning the contribution of semantic conflict to the Stroop interference effect and its reduction by a single-letter coloring and cueing procedure. On the first issue, it provides, for the first time, unambiguous evidence for a contribution of semantic conflict to the (overall) Stroop interference effect. The reported data remained inconclusive on the second issue, despite being collected in a considerable sample and analyzed with both classical (frequentist) and Bayesian inferential approaches. Given that in all past Stroop studies, semantic conflict was possibly confounded with either response conflict (e.g., when semantic-associative items [ SKYblue] are used to induce semantic conflict) or with facilitation (when color-congruent items [ BLUEblue] are used as baseline to derive a magnitude for semantic conflict), its genuine contribution to the Stroop interference effect is the most critical result reported in the present study. Indeed, it leaves no doubt – in complete contrast to dominant single-stage response competition models (e.g., Roelofs, 2003 ) – that selection occurs at the semantic level in the Stroop task. The immediate implications for the composite (as opposed to unitary) nature of the Stroop interference effect and other still unresolved issues in the Stroop literature are outlined further.

EXPRESS: Using Relative-Speed-of-Processing to Explain the Shielding Function of Task Rules

In choice reaction tests, applying task rules instead of responding associatively can help participants shield against interference from distractors. However, the mechanism of such shielding functions remains unclear. Through four experiments, we show how the shielding function can be explained by the Relative-Speed-of-Processing theory. Experiment 1A demonstrated that applying task rules can reduce the relative processing advantage of the distractor by facilitating the target processing speed, thereby eliminating the interference effect. In Experiments 1B, and 1C, we manipulated the relative processing advantage between targets and distractors by adjusting the temporal sequence of the presence of the targets and distractors: stimuli appearing first would gain more relative processing advantage. The results showed that when the relative processing advantage of a distractor was large enough, applying task rules cannot help participants shield against the interference. Contrarily, when the relative processing advantage of the distractor was small, even without applying task rules, participants did not experience the interference. In Experiment 2, we directly manipulated the processing speed of the targets and the distractor, so that participants who responded associatively would facilitate target processing speed, but participants who applied task rules would not. Contrary to previous studies but in line with our prediction, in Experiment 2, only participants who applied task rules had interference effects. Our results suggested that applying the task rule might not help us shield against the interference directly. Instead, applying task rules improves target-processing speed, which in turn reduces the relative processing advantage of the distractor and eliminates the interference.