interindividual differences
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

501
(FIVE YEARS 129)

H-INDEX

54
(FIVE YEARS 5)

Author(s):  
Stefanie Schuch ◽  
Andrea M. Philipp ◽  
Luisa Maulitz ◽  
Iring Koch

AbstractThis study examined the reliability (retest and split-half) of four common behavioral measures of cognitive control. In Experiment 1 (N = 96), we examined N – 2 task repetition costs as a marker of task-level inhibition, and the cue-stimulus interval (CSI) effect as a marker of time-based task preparation. In Experiment 2 (N = 48), we examined a Stroop-like face-name interference effect as a measure of distractor interference control, and the sequential congruency effect (“conflict adaptation effect”) as a measure of conflict-triggered adaptation of cognitive control. In both experiments, the measures were assessed in two sessions on the same day, separated by a 10 min-long unrelated filler task. We observed substantial experimental effects with medium to large effect sizes. At the same time, split-half reliabilities were moderate, and retest reliabilities were poor, for most measures, except for the CSI effect. Retest reliability of the Stroop-like effect was improved when considering only trials preceded by congruent trials. Together, the data suggest that these cognitive control measures are well suited for assessing group-level effects of cognitive control. Yet, except for the CSI effect, these measures do not seem suitable for reliably assessing interindividual differences in the strength of cognitive control, and therefore are not suited for correlational approaches. We discuss possible reasons for the discrepancy between robustness at the group level and reliability at the level of interindividual differences.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefanie H. Meeuwis ◽  
Henriët van Middendorp ◽  
Dieuwke S. Veldhuijzen ◽  
Andrea W. M. Evers

Introduction: Placebo and nocebo effects are positive and negative health outcomes that can be elicited by the psychosocial context. They can be mediated by expectations, and may emerge in somatic symptoms even when people are aware of these effects. Interindividual differences (e.g., in personality, affective states) could impact placebo and nocebo responding, but findings are inconsistent.Methods: The current work examined expectation as a mediator of the association between verbal placebo and nocebo suggestions (VSs) and histamine-induced itch across three experimental studies. Moreover, we examined whether interindividual differences (e.g., in optimism, neuroticism, behavioral activation system (BAS), body ignorance) modulated: (1) the direct association between VSs and itch (direct moderation), and (2) the indirect, expectation-mediated association between VSs and itch (moderated mediation). Positive VSs were compared to neutral instructions (Study 1; n = 92) or negative VSs (Studies 2+3; n = 203) in an open-label (i.e., explaining placebo and nocebo effects) or closed-label (concealed) context using PROCESS. First, mediation of VSs effects on itch by expectations was tested. Next, moderation by individual traits was explored using conditional process analyses.Results: The effects of VSs on itch were significantly mediated by expectation in Study 1 and in the open-label (but not closed-label) contexts of Studies 2 and 3. Ignorance of bodily signals marginally moderated the direct effects of VSs on itch when closed-label suggestions were given: at low levels of body ignorance, effects of positive and negative VSs were stronger. Moreover, moderated mediation was observed in the open-label groups of Studies 2 and 3: The expectation-mediated effects of VSs on itch were stronger when BAS drive was lower.Conclusion: Overall, the effects of VSs on itch were mediated by expectations in the open-label, but not the closed-label context. Moreover, the current work suggests that placebo and nocebo effects may be moderated by ignorance of bodily signals and the BAS. There was limited evidence that other interindividual differences modulated placebo and nocebo responding in itch.


Author(s):  
Arianna Menardi ◽  
Andrew E. Reineberg ◽  
Louisa L. Smith ◽  
Chiara Favaretto ◽  
Antonino Vallesi ◽  
...  

AbstractExecutive functions (EF) are a set of higher-order cognitive abilities that enable goal-directed behavior by controlling lower-level operations. In the brain, those functions have been traditionally associated with activity in the Frontoparietal Network, but recent neuroimaging studies have challenged this view in favor of more widespread cortical involvement. In the present study, we aimed to explore whether the network that serves as critical hubs at rest, which we term network reliance, differentiate individuals as a function of their level of EF. Furthermore, we investigated whether such differences are driven by genetic as compared to environmental factors. For this purpose, resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging data and the behavioral testing of 453 twins from the Colorado Longitudinal Twins Study were analyzed. Separate indices of EF performance were obtained according to a bifactor unity/diversity model, distinguishing between three independent components representing: Common EF, Shifting-specific and Updating-specific abilities. Through an approach of step-wise in silico network lesioning of the individual functional connectome, we show that interindividual differences in EF are associated with different dependencies on neural networks at rest. Furthermore, these patterns show evidence of mild heritability. Such findings add knowledge to the understanding of brain states at rest and their connection with human behavior, and how they might be shaped by genetic influences.


Appetite ◽  
2021 ◽  
pp. 105844
Author(s):  
Jean-François Brunet ◽  
Jessica McNeil ◽  
Luzia Jaeger Hintze ◽  
Éric Doucet ◽  
Geneviève Forest

SLEEP ◽  
2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Olga Galli ◽  
Christopher W Jones ◽  
Olivia Larson ◽  
Mathias Basner ◽  
David F Dinges

Abstract Interindividual differences in the neurobehavioral response to sleep loss are largely unexplained and phenotypic in nature. Numerous factors have been examined as predictors of differential response to sleep loss, but none have yielded a comprehensive view of the phenomenon. The present study examines the impact of baseline factors, habitual sleep–wake patterns, and homeostatic response to sleep loss on accrued deficits in psychomotor vigilance during chronic partial sleep restriction (SR), in a total of 306 healthy adults that participated in one of three independent laboratory studies. Findings indicate no significant impact of personality, academic intelligence, subjective reports of chronotype, sleepiness and fatigue, performance on working memory, and demographic factors such as sex, ethnicity, and body mass index, on neurobehavioral vulnerability to the negative effects of sleep loss. Only superior baseline performance on the psychomotor vigilance test and ability to sustain wakefulness on the maintenance of wakefulness test were associated with relative resilience to decrements in vigilant attention during SR. Interindividual differences in vulnerability to the effects of sleep loss were not accounted for by prior sleep history, habitual sleep patterns outside of the laboratory, baseline sleep architecture, or homeostatic sleep response during chronic partial SR. A recent theoretical model proposed that sleep–wake modulation may be influenced by competing internal and external demands which may promote wakefulness despite homeostatic and circadian signals for sleep under the right circumstances. Further research is warranted to examine the possibility of interindividual differences in the ability to prioritize external demands for wakefulness in the face of mounting pressure to sleep.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
IJsbrand Leertouwer ◽  
Noémi Katalin Schuurman ◽  
Jeroen Vermunt

Retrospective Assessment (RA) scores are often found to be higher than the mean of Ecological Momentary Assessment (EMA) scores about a concurrent period. This difference is generally interpreted as bias towards salient experiences in RA. During RA, participants are often asked to summarize their experiences in unspecific terms, which may indeed facilitate bias. At least in this unspecific form, the summary that participants apply to their remembered experiences can take many different forms. In this study, we reanalyzed an existing dataset (N = 92) using a repeated N = 1 approach. We reported on interindividual differences between EMA data and RA score, and assessed for each participant whether it was likely that their RA score was an approximation of the mean of their experiences as captured by their EMA data. We found considerable interpersonal differences in the difference between EMA scores and RA scores, as well as some extreme cases. Furthermore, for a considerable part of the sample (n = 46 for positive affect, n = 60 for negative affect), we did not reject the null hypothesis that their RA score represented the mean of their experiences as captured by their EMA data. We conclude that in its current unspecific form, RA may facilitate bias, although not for everyone. Future studies may determine whether more specific forms of RA reduce bias, while acknowledging interindividual differences.


2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacob T. Bonafiglia ◽  
Nicholas Preobrazenski ◽  
Brendon J. Gurd

Background: Many reports describe statistical approaches for estimating interindividual differences in trainability and classifying individuals as “responders” or “non-responders.” The extent to which studies in the exercise training literature have adopted these statistical approaches remains unclear.Objectives: This systematic review primarily sought to determine the extent to which studies in the exercise training literature have adopted sound statistical approaches for examining individual responses to exercise training. We also (1) investigated the existence of interindividual differences in trainability, and (2) tested the hypothesis that less conservative thresholds inflate response rates compared with thresholds that consider error and a smallest worthwhile change (SWC)/minimum clinically important difference (MCID).Methods: We searched six databases: AMED, CINAHL, EMBASE, Medline, PubMed, and SportDiscus. Our search spanned the aerobic, resistance, and clinical or rehabilitation training literature. Studies were included if they used human participants, employed standardized and supervised exercise training, and either: (1) stated that their exercise training intervention resulted in heterogenous responses, (2) statistically estimated interindividual differences in trainability, and/or (3) classified individual responses. We calculated effect sizes (ESIR) to examine the presence of interindividual differences in trainability. We also compared response rates (n = 614) across classification approaches that considered neither, one of, or both errors and an SWC or MCID. We then sorted response rates from studies that also reported mean changes and response thresholds (n = 435 response rates) into four quartiles to confirm our ancillary hypothesis that larger mean changes produce larger response rates.Results: Our search revealed 3,404 studies, and 149 were included in our systematic review. Few studies (n = 9) statistically estimated interindividual differences in trainability. The results from these few studies present a mixture of evidence for the presence of interindividual differences in trainability because several ESIR values lay above, below, or crossed zero. Zero-based thresholds and larger mean changes significantly (both p < 0.01) inflated response rates.Conclusion: Our findings provide evidence demonstrating why future studies should statistically estimate interindividual differences in trainability and consider error and an SWC or MCID when classifying individual responses to exercise training.Systematic Review Registration: [website], identifier [registration number].


2021 ◽  
pp. 208-222
Author(s):  
Selen Razon ◽  
Michael Sachs

Behavioral compliance is a fundamental problem in exercise settings. Exercise psychology is concerned with psychosocial determinants of exercise behavior. First, theories and research related to the psychology of exercise are reviewed. Next, five major unanswered questions that revolve around the most commonly studied and least understood aspects of exercise behavior are explored. Specifically, antecedents, determinants, consequences, measurement, and interindividual differences related to exercise behavior are considered. The importance of effectively answering these questions is discussed considering that physical inactivity remains the greatest public health issue of the 21st century. Finally, from a scientist-practitioner standpoint, the potential of experimental methods, systematic reviews, case reports, expert opinions, and cohort studies for approaching the unknowns and advancing the field is evaluated.


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicolas Spatola ◽  
Serena Marchesi ◽  
Agnieszka Wykowska

In human-robot interactions, people tend to attribute to robots mental states such as intentions or desires, in order to make sense of their behaviour. This cognitive strategy is termed “intentional stance”. Adopting the intentional stance influences how one will consider, engage and behave towards robots. However, people differ in their likelihood to adopt intentional stance towards robots. Therefore, it seems crucial to assess these interindividual differences. In two studies we developed and validated the structure of a task aiming at evaluating to what extent people adopt intentional stance towards robot actions, the Intentional Stance task (IST). The Intentional Stance Task consists in a task that probes participants’ stance by requiring them to choose the plausibility of a description (mentalistic vs. mechanistic) of behaviour of a robot depicted in a scenario composed of three photographs. Results showed a reliable psychometric structure of the IST. This paper therefore concludes with the proposal of using the IST as a proxy for assessing the degree of adoption of the intentional stance towards robots.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document