Thesis (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison. / Typescript. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 50-53).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1963. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 200-204).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1984. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 25-32).

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1980. / Typescript. Vita. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 127-135).

Substantial evidence shows that attentional bias towards threat plays a fundamental role in anxiety and that deficits in frontal brain functioning might explain this. However, a paucity of research on anger related attentional bias leaves unanswered questions about whether similar mechanisms underpin aggression. This has led to a lack of theoretical explanations for anger related attentional bias and effective interventions to reduce anger. Electroencephalographic (EEG) evidence suggests that the hemispheric specialisation of the frontal brain predicts differential responding to emotional stimuli in anger and anxiety. Manipulating motivational direction, via unilateral hand contractions (UHCs), provides a means to explore the causal relationship between anger and attentional bias to threat. Previously, this method has only been used to change experiential and expressional aspects of emotion and its effectiveness in modulating attentional components of emotion regulation are unknown. Therefore, this Thesis aims to explore whether UHCs effectively modulate attentional bias to threat in relation to, and independent of trait anger. It also aims to discover the underlying neural effects of the UHC method to examine whether threat-related attentional changes reflect modulations in cognitive control and/or approach motivation. Finally, this Thesis aims to bridge the gap between the attentional bias and frontal brain asymmetry literature. These aims will be addressed by employing Emotional Stroop and Dot Probe paradigms as well as event related potentials measures. The findings provide evidence that UHCs provides an effective technique to modulate attentional bias to threat. Specifically, RHCs reduce attentional bias to threat independent of trait anger and in individuals with low trait anger but they do not modify attentional bias to threat in high anger individuals. In contrast, LHCs increase attentional bias to threat and this reduced task relevant processing, independent of trait anger. The implications of these novel findings and future directions of research are discussed.

Stankov's work on attention and intelligence suggests that the dual task paradigm, requiring the division of attention, is a better measure of general intellectual ability than the single task paradigm which does not make this demand. Sixty right handed undergraduates remembered digit and visual-spatial sequences alone and in two dual task conditions involving lateralized key tapping as the primary task. R gher intercorrelations were found under dual task conditions in which the tasks competed for the same hemisphere's resources. Better memory performance resulted when both tasks were lateralized to the same hemisphere. Hierarchical models combining general attention resources with ,lateralized hemispheric resources best account for these resutsi

Thesis (doctoral)--Lund University, 1998. / Added t.p. with thesis statement inserted. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (doctoral)--Lund University, 1998. / Added t.p. with thesis statement inserted. Includes bibliographical references.

Digitized by Kansas Correctional Industries

The purpose of this study was to determine if right-side dominant college students who received thermal biofeedback from the dominant side of the body would learn the voluntary control of hard temperature faster than those who received feecback from the non-dominant side.The sample consisted of 60 volunteers from a large university in the 'Midwest. The subjects were randomly assigned to two treatment groups with 30 subjects in each group. In all, 38 females and 22 males completed the experiment. The subjects were not taking medication, nor did they have any past history of psychological treatment or any experience with biofeedback training.Treatments had previously been randomly assigned to groups prior to the assignment of subjects. Group one received feedback from the index finger of the right hand, and group two received feedback from the index finger of the left hand.The equipment used in this study consisted of two Systec, Inc., T2-P thermal trainers. The experimenter placed the thermistor of the instrument on the assigned index finger of the subject. Scotch brand transparent tape, 1/2 inch wide, was used to attach the termistor to the subject's finger and care was taken to insure that the tape did not restrict the flow of blood.The study consisted of five sessions, and each session was 20 minutes in length. The first session consisted only of 20 minutes of adaption to the treatment room and to the thermal trainer. The subject was instructed to relax during this period, and after five minutes of adaption the thermal. trainer was turned on; however, no feedback was provided to the subject. The temperature at the end of 15 minutes was recorded and defined as the subject's basal temperature.Sessions two, three, four, and five were identical to each other in time period design. There were five minutes of adaption and 15 minutes of visual feedback. The end-temperature was recorded for each of these sessions.The data were subjected to a two way analysis of variance with repeated measures on one factor. The F value obtained for the interaction between the locus of feedback and the performance for the number of sessions was not statistically significant at the .05 level. Therefore, the group that received feedback from the dominant side did not learn the voluntary central of hand temperature faster than the group that received feedback from the non-dominant side.In addition, there was no support for 2 informal hypotheses which were tested. There was no significant difference in performance between the dominant hard feedback group and the non-dominant hand feedback group. The number of sessions did make a significant difference in endtemperature scores. However, this hypothesis had not been selected for an a priori test and so it could not be rejected at the a priori .05 level of confidence. A Scheffe test revealed that the differences for the s' le marginal effects were not significantly different at the .05 level of significance.