Baker A H
Department of Psychology, Queens College, City University of New York, Flushing 11367.
J Psychol. 1988 Jul;122(4):349-63. doi: 10.1080/00223980.1988.9915522.
A few of the recent researchers of kinesthetic aftereffect (KAE) as an index of augmenting/reducing have continued to employ a two-session procedure. Findings that have accrued in the past decade indicate (a) The first administration of KAE is a reliable (internally consistent) and valid index of augmenting-reducing; (b) there are carry-over effects from the first to the second administration that bias the second session's preinduction scores; (c) KAE scores from sessions after the first do not relate to first-session scores (low retest reliability) and do not measure augmenting/reducing; and (d) unless special procedures are undertaken to avoid using the biased second- (or later-) session preinduction scores, a KAE procedure involving more than one session is contraindicated. When we reached a similar conclusion earlier (Baker et al., 1974), Petrie (1974) disagreed, arguing that a two-session procedure was needed to identify and eliminate an atypical subgroup, the "stimulus governed." The case for determining which subjects are stimulus-governed is assessed and found wanting. Except in special circumstances, a one-session KAE procedure, in which all preinduction trials precede the first exposure to aftereffect induction, is indicated.
最近一些将动觉后效(KAE)作为增强/减弱指标的研究者继续采用两阶段程序。过去十年积累的研究结果表明:(a)首次施用KAE是增强/减弱的可靠(内部一致)且有效的指标;(b)从第一次到第二次施用存在遗留效应,使第二阶段的诱导前分数产生偏差;(c)第一次之后各阶段的KAE分数与第一阶段分数无关(重测信度低),且无法测量增强/减弱;(d)除非采取特殊程序以避免使用有偏差的第二(或后续)阶段诱导前分数,否则禁忌采用涉及多个阶段的KAE程序。当我们 earlier(Baker等人,1974年)得出类似结论时,Petrie(1974年)表示反对,认为需要两阶段程序来识别和消除一个非典型亚组,即“受刺激支配者”。对确定哪些受试者是受刺激支配者的理由进行了评估,发现并不充分。除特殊情况外,建议采用单阶段KAE程序,即所有诱导前试验都在首次接触后效诱导之前进行。