Van valaki, aki megtenné, hogy segít egy-egy bekezdést lefordítani egy angol cikkből? (kicsit orvosi szakszöveg)

The CC is especially suitable for the current study because

it yields variables reflecting the rate and types of errors and

exogenous/endogenous influences on errors. The functional

similarity and visual similarity between distractors and

targets were considered to reflect endogenous influences on

CC errors. If errors are influenced by an internal action plan

(or internal object representation), then distractors that are

highly similar to targets will be selected over distractors that

are dissimilar to targets. Prior evidence with brain-damaged

patients attests to an effect of distractor–target similarity

on action errors (Cooper & Shallice, 2000; Giovannetti,

Libon, Buxbaum&Schwartz, 2002; Reason, 1990; Schwartz

et al., 1995). Even more to the point, in healthy adults, the

salience of various visual and functional distractor features

is modulated by the participant’s intention (i.e. action plan;

Bekkering & Neggers, 2002; Boutsen & Humphreys, 2003;

Pavese & Buxbaum, 2002; Remington & Folk, 2001). For

example, handled cups are more distracting when subjects

intend to grasp than poke a target (Pavese & Buxbaum,

2002). In a normative study of the CC with healthy participants,

distractor–target similarity had a greater effect on

errors than chance (see Appendix A).

The proximity of distractors to the acting hand and to the

target were assessed as indicators of exogenous influences on

CC errors. Selection based on distractor location reflects the

influence of the environment or object array (exogenous),

not the internal action plan (or object representation). Distractor

location has been shown to affect performance in a

range of reach-to-target tasks (Buxbaum & Permaul, 2001;

Tipper, Howard,&Houghton, 1998; Tipper, Lortie&Baylis,

1992; see also Graziano, Yap & Gross, 1994). Additionally,

we have shown that these factors influenced distractor selection

more than chance in a normative study of the CC (see

Appendix A).

The CC (Coffee Challange)is a standardized naturalistic task

Egyébként annyi a lényeg, h alien-hand syndrome-ban szenvedő betegnek kellett végrehajtani ezt a feladatot.

Participants were asked to make two cups of coffee (one

for Joe and one for Martha). As shown in Table 1, eight

unique, but similar objects were used for each cup and were

present on a U-shaped testing table throughout the task. The

tabletop was divided into 16 sections, each containing an object,

and a central workspace as shown in Fig. 3.

Object placementwas standardized so that the object array

was the same across participants, but differed from trial to

trial. Prior to each trial, several of the corresponding objects

for each cup (e.g. the two mugs; the two sweeteners) switched

places. For example, if the mugs for Joe’s cup and Martha’s

cup were on the left and right, respectively, in the first trial,

these placements were intermittently reversed in subsequent

trials.

Prior to the first trial, the objects used for each cup were reviewed

several times and participants were instructed towork

as quickly as possible without making errors. The order of

the task was not specified, but participants were encouraged

to interleave the steps of Joe and Martha’s cups to minimize

time. Participants were also urged not to touch or move objects

until they were ready to use them. At the end of each

trial, time to completion was announced, and participants

were encouraged to try and outperform their fastest time on

the subsequent trial. While data from the normative study indicated

that CC performance stabilized by the 10th trial (see

Appendix A), we administered 13 trials in the present study

to increase the opportunity for JC to reach asymptotic levels

of performance. All trials were videotaped for coding.