898 research outputs found
The Edmonton Latvian Society Imanta
No full textScrapbook page: Includes a B&W photo of Ted & Viola Baker, descriptive history of Imanta in Alberta, Imanta's Mission and Purpose [1947], Updated Imanta Constitution of 2003, Goda Karte (Ted Baker Honourary and Lifetime member of Imanta)1.0 Imanta, 1.1.1 History of Imant
The viola, its foundation, role, and literature including an analysis of the twelve caprices by Lillian Fuchs
No full textDiscussion in this document is directed toward two main areas: Chapters two, three, and four are concerned with the development of the viola as a serious musical instrument in the orchestral, chamber, and solo genres. The history of the instrument is presented on a parallel track with that of the violin, showing how the viola is similar to, and differs from the violin, with respect to the size and most importantly, playing technique. An attempt is made to show that historically there has been a lack of understanding on the part of most pedagogues concerning the subtle differences in performance technique between violin and viola. This is accomplished by a comparison of methods and studies for both instruments from the Harmonie Universelle of Mersenne through the development of the French School, including Kreutzer, Rode, Gavinies, and others. Such comparison leads the author to state that there is little which actually acknowledges the differences between playing violin and viola.The author states that the main problems between the two instruments are mostly a matter of degree with regard to such techniques as extension, shifting, finger percussion, double-stop articulations, and bowing. Such discussion leads to the conclusion that there is a need for technical studies which will provide for this above-stated degree of difference, and put the "finishing touches" on the violist's playing technique.It is the opinion of this author that such technical studies are embodied in the form of Twelve Caprices for Viola by Lillian Fuchs. These caprices were written by Miss Fuchs to help her overcome performance problems with which she was faced.Part two of this dissertation is an analysis of the Twelve Caprices. In preparing this analysis the author approached the principal problems of each hand and addressed himself to the methods for surmounting each separate problem. Each caprice is methodically analyzed in some detail, avoiding redundancy by discussing only new techniques as they occur, and not restating problems which are the same in more than one caprice.Thesis (D.A.
Imanta
No full textImanta is a cultural support organization formed on March 8, 1947 in Edmonton, Alberta. Imanta was founded by Ted Baker and Latvian people previously established in Alberta. Ted Baker's wife Viola Baker, also supported Ted's belief in the value of a formal organization that would serve as a contact point for new Latvian immigrants. Imanta originally helped immigrants connect with other Latvians and settle in the province. Imanta has continued to remain a vital cultural part of Latvian society in Alberta. The Edmonton Latvian Society "Imanta" meets regularly, through many social and cultural gatherings and formal events. The Imanta resource network remains a vital part of Latvian society in Alberta today.Imanta 1.
Terminating continuous movements with(out) perceptual overlap to moving
No full textThis experiment tests the idea of ‘termination by a new plan’ for continuous movements. Also, it studies body-external perceptual features of termination (e.g., Mocke et al., 2020). It should be harder to stop an action (A) when it shares features with the perceptual consequences of the ‘new act’ to not move (B) than when it does not, because the new plan to not move would retrieve features of the plan to move. This experiment is the first demonstration of this, as we believe, novel phenomenon.
Participants move their hand on a digitizer tablet either clockwise or counterclockwise (varied randomly across trials) in a certain speed. At an unpredictable time point a visual halt signal is presented (color change of fixation cross), which requires to immediately terminate that movement. Minimum movement duration will be 3 seconds. These 3 seconds will be added to an additional duration, which we will sample from a nonaging (e.g., exponential) distribution with rate lambda = 1 (that is, with mean 1) to countermand aging foreperiod effects.
Doing so causes in different blocks (with block order counterbalanced across participants), and thus foreseeably, a visual movement that either does or does not share the direction feature (clockwise or counterclockwise rotation) with the to be terminated hand movement.
One group will be instructed to stop their movement as soon as the stimulus appears, while the other group will be instructed to initiate a small counter-movement (a few millimeters large )
Contrast & Assimilation in Action Sequences (ABBA task)
No full textPrevious research has shown that action durations can be influenced by action plans held in working memory for later (Mocke et al., 2022). Specifically, keypresses tend to be shorter when a long action is planned than when a short action is planned. This hints towards a contrasting mechanism between planned and first-to-be-executed actions. In previous studies, actions were additionally defined by their location, not only their duration. In this experiment, we will test whether this contrast effect also occurs for simpler actions, that is, keypresses that are only distinguished by their duration. Further, we will use three different durations and a no plan condition to get an even better understanding of the mechanisms underlying this contrast effect.
In an ABBA paradigm, participants will only use one key. In each trial, they will first see a fixation cross of 300ms, then for 500ms a stimulus A (1, 2, 3 or X) that tells them whether and which duration to plan. After a blank of 1000ms, they will see a 200ms stimulus B (K, M, L) that tells them duration B, and are asked to execute first action B and then A, within a time window of 4000ms after stimulus B onset. Short durations will be between 175 and 350, medium ones between 359 and 700 and long ones between 700 and 1400 ms
Binding of Colour Features and Spatial Features
No full textBased on ideomotor theory, the Theory of Event Coding (Hommel, Müsseler, Aschersleben, & Prinz, 2001) construes action planning as activating and binding features of their anticipated effects. Previous research has shown worse performance for actions that partially overlap with an action plan held in preparation regarding bound action effect features than for actions which features do either not or completely overlap with an active action plan (Mocke, Weller, Frings, Rothermund, & Kunde, 2020).
This online experiment aims at testing whether coding the very same actions in spatial features can be overcome by action coding in non-spatial (color) features. Finding that such recoding is possible would suggest that spatial features are not special but can be replaced by other features optionally.
Participants position one hand "above" (keys 6 and 7) the other hand (keys B and N) on a QWERTZ keyboard. They see differently colored squares aligned in a square around the fixation cross on screen, each representing one of the four used fingers (little and ring finger of one hand, middle and index finger of the other hand). In one of the between-subjects conditions, spatial ("left" and "right") and color ("blue" and "yellow") features will be redundant between the upper and the lower hands, while in the other condition, colors will be reversed for the lower hand.
Actions are instructed in terms of colors and hands. A first stimulus for instance tells participants to prepare a “blue” or “yellow”, "upper" or "lower" keypress as action A. Then, a second stimulus requires a “blue” or “yellow”, "upper" or "lower" keypress as action B. To test for potential spatial coding we will analyze performance in action B in terms of overlap with the spatial features “left” and “right”
Cancellation of Planned Actions: Behavioural measures and EEG correlates (Exp. 2)
No full textDiscarding an action can occur because an initial plan can no longer be carried out. What happens with action files after such discarding? In this experiment, we will investigate this using both behavioral measures and EEG correlates of action plans.
We will modify the standard ABBA paradigm (Mocke et al., 2022), in which participants are asked to prepare an action A. Yet, before carrying out that action another action B is requested. Initiating this first requested action B is typically delayed and more error-prone if it does share some features with the planned action A, than when it does not, leading to so-called partial overlap costs (e.g., Stoet & Hommel, 1999; Wiediger & Fournier, 2008). Usually, performance is best when actions A and B fully overlap. Between stimulus A and stimulus B, we will include a signal indicating that the plan for action A is to be retained for later (75%) or can be discarded (25%). The crucial comparison relates to performance in action B in “discard” and “continue” trials as a function of overlap with the planned or discarded action A (i.e., partial overlap costs).
A combination of word stimuli (DIT for short and DAH for long) with asterisks to the left or right, and of short or long arrows pointing to the left or right, will indicate whether a left or right action of either short or long duration is required.
Throughout each trial, the center of the screen will be framed by a rectangle, that is initially grey. After a jittered fixation cross, participants will see stimulus A (500ms), followed by the planning interval (2000ms). After that, the frame will change to one of two colours (yellow vs. blue), indicating that the plan for action A is to be retained (75%) or discarded (25%). After a certain discard time (1000 ms), stimulus B appears (200ms), and responses B and A are required within another 4000ms after stimulus B onset.
In this second experiment, we increased the discard time from 400 to 1000ms in order to be better able to find EEG markers of discarding without influences of stimulus B and action B
Cancellation of Planned Actions: Manipulation of Discard Time
No full textDiscarding an action can occur because an initial plan can no longer be carried out. What happens with action files after such discarding?
We will modify the standard ABBA paradigm (Mocke et al., 2021), in which participants are asked to prepare an action A. Yet, before carrying out that action another action B is requested. Initiating this first requested action B is typically delayed and more error-prone if it does share some features with the planned action A, than when it does not, leading to so-called partial overlap costs (Stoet & Hommel, 1999; Wiediger & Fournier, 2008). Usually, performance is best when actions A and B fully overlap. Between stimulus A and stimulus B, we will include a signal indicating that the plan for action A is to be retained for later (75%) or can be discarded (25%). The crucial comparison relates to performance in action B in “discard” and “continue” trials as a function of overlap with the planned or discarded action A (i.e., partial overlap costs).
How a discarded action A impacts the initiation of a feature-overlapping action B conceivably depends on two factors, the time already spent on planning action A before discarding, and the time after discarding action A, but before the requested action B. These influences can be distinguished by manipulating the time intervals between the announcement of action A and discard signal, and between discard signal and stimulus B. In this experiment, we will vary the Discard Time trialwise (200ms vs. 400ms).
A combination of DIT/DAH stimuli with asterisks to the left or right (Action A), and of short or long arrows pointing to the left or right A (Action B), will indicate whether a left or right action of either short or long duration is required.
Throughout each trial, the center of the screen will be framed by a rectangle, that is initially grey. After a fixation cross (300ms), participants will see stimulus A (500ms), followed by the planning interval (2000ms). After that, the frame will change to one of two colours (yellow vs. blue), indicating that the plan for action A is to be retained (75%) or discarded (25%). After a certain discard time (200ms vs. 400 ms), stimulus B appears (200ms), and responses B and A are required within another 4000ms after stimulus B onset
Altering bindings of action effect features by affective enrichment 2
No full textPrevious work has already reported preliminary evidence for integration of affective features in event-files (Eder, Müsseler, & Hommel, 2012). Closely linked is the question whether assigning a certain valence to an action effect results in increased relevance and therefore altered binding effects (see Mocke et al., 2020). One first indicator for such an influence of action effect valence on binding is a study showing that rewarding actions can strengthen action-effect bindings (Eder, Erle, & Kunde, 2019). Here, participants learned in an acquisition phase that certain actions (i.e., button presses) result in auditory effects while some but not all actions are financially rewarded. In a test phase, they found prime compatibility effects in RTs to be larger for previously rewarded keypresses in comparison to previously unrewarded or punished keypresses.
Instead of such long-term bindings, one can also investigate whether trialwise formed episodic response-effect (R-E) bindings can be strengthened by reward. Specifically, we will examine this in the context of action planning (instead of action execution). We will test whether when planning an action, which will foreseeably have a particular environmental effect, the strength of the R-E binding (and thus of the not yet executed action plan) can be altered by rendering the effect rewarding, neutral or punishing.
To do so, we will adapt the Inducer-Diagnostic (ID) paradigm by Theeuwes, De Houwer, Eder, and Liefooghe (2015). Here, participants learned two R-E associations via instructions in each run (e.g., 'If you press left, "P" appears. If you press right, "Q" appears). While maintaining these two action plans and before executing them at the end of the run, the subjects worked on a different diagnostic task. The presence of the initially instructed R-E bindings was reflected in a congruency effect, which was caused by improved (reduced) performance if the required action in the intervening trials did (not) correspond to the action linked to the letter stimulus by instruction.
This second experiment will consist of three blocks (positive, neutral, negative). In each, the two environmental effects per run will be assigned the same valence specific for that block. Valence will be operationalised by financial reward/loss (+/- 50p). We will examine whether the valence of the instructed action effects changes the size of the congruency effect.
Compared to the first experiment, the design will be simplified with congruency effect as dependent variable instead of performance itself. Importantly, as the previous experiment did not yield overall congruency effects, we will use an improved paradigm, which will also more closely resemble the original study by Theeuwes and colleagues (2015)
Me or you? Binding and retrieval of multiple response features when representing own and others’ action plans
No full textStoet and Hommel (1999) found that when a person plans an action, essential features of that action are temporarily bound together in so called “action files” (see also Hommel et al., 2001). Further research on this topic showed that binding also occurs not only when spatial features are bound together, but also when a person plans an action that consists of spatial and non-spatial features. This was investigated, for example, with temporal (short and long) and spatial (left and right) response features (Mocke et al., 2022). Having found solid evidence for feature binding when one person plans an action, the question arises whether binding of essential action features occurs also when that person observes another person planning an action. Giesen et al. (2014) have already investigated a similar question and found that binding of stimulus and response features also occurs when one person merely observes another person executing an action. Taking this information together, we want to further examine how binding of two response features (color and duration) for representing an action plan is influenced by the person who is planning the action (oneself or another person). In other words, we will investigate whether the structure of the mental representations of other people’s action plans resembles the structure of our own action plans. To investigate this question, we will use a modified version of the ABBA paradigm. The standard ABBA paradigm consists of a presented stimulus A containing information on the basis of which a person should plan to perform action A (Stoet & Hommel, 1999). However, before the person can carry out action A, they are asked to plan another action B after stimulus B has been presented to them, and to execute that action B prior to action A. In this version, actions A and B will consist of either a long or short button press with the left or right hand. The execution of the first required action B is typically delayed and more error-prone if action A and B have one feature in common compared to if either all or none of the features of action B correspond with action A. This phenomenon is known as “Partial Overlap Costs”. In this study we will use the ABBA paradigm by Mocke et al. (2022) but with a few modifications. First, we will have two subjects sitting across from each other at a table so that they can perform the trials together. The subjects will be instructed to work together as a team gaining 10 points for correctly completed trials and losing 10 points for incorrectly completing any action in the trial. This will create a positive interdependence between the two subjects which should enhance episodic binding effects (see Giesen et al., 2014). Stimuli will be presented and responses given via a tablet that will be placed in the middle of the table at the same distance from both subjects.
Six circular buttons will be presented on the tablet at all times. Four neutrally colored starting areas, one in each of the tablet’s corners, and two target areas (cyan and magenta). Each participant will need to rest their index fingers on the two starting areas closest to them. Correct responses will consist of the correct participant releasing the respective starting area and making a reaching movement to the correct target area (with the hand on the same side as the area), pressing the target area for the correct duration, and moving the index finger back into the starting area. Stimuli will be presented twice in the center of the screen, one being mirrored, so that each can be read by one participant.
We will manipulate the essential features of the action, that is, apart from spatial (here: color) and temporal features also which person executes the action. For action B, this can be subject 1 or subject 2. For action A however, it means either subject 1, subject 2, or neither of the subjects plans to execute action A. In the latter control condition, no subject will be instructed to plan executing action A. This is implemented by a stimulus A that is presented to both subjects, but is missing the information on the person who is to plan action A. The presented stimulus will still contain the relevant color and duration features, but neither subject will be asked to plan an action. We implemented this control condition to test the representation of other people’s actions not only against own actions but also against the representation of a stimulus that does not require any response.
We will also manipulate the duration and color features. The duration feature refers to whether a short (0-200ms) or a long button press (201-700ms) will be required for each action. The color feature refers to whether a press on the cyan or the magenta colored button is required. Since the button that is the ‘left’ button for one participant is automatically the ‘right’ button for the other participant, we will use colored buttons instead of labeling them as “left” and “right”, as in previous experiments. Taken together, the actions consist of one person pressing either the cyan or the magenta key for a short or long period of time.
Having explained the manipulation of our essential action features, it is of course important to define which stimuli will be used in our experiment. The duration feature of Stimulus A consists of either a “DIT” (implying a short key press) or a “DAH” (implying a long key press). We will signal the color feature of action A by using different colors for the word “DIT” versus “DAH”. The word will be colored in cyan or magenta to indicate which button should be pressed. The person feature of stimulus A will be an underlining of the word “DIT” or “DAH” (this subject is being asked to plan action A) while the other subject will see the same word with a line above the word (this subject is not planning action A). If the word is not underlined at all (for both subjects), no one is asked to plan action A (i.e. the control condition is at work).
It is important that stimulus B differs from stimulus A in its essential characteristics. For this reason, we will use an arrow to indicate which colored button should be pressed (color feature). The arrow points to the left if the key is to be pressed on the left and to the right if the key is to be pressed on the right. The buttons will still be colored cyan and magenta. The duration feature of stimulus B will be implemented using the length of the arrow. We will use either a long or a short arrow to indicate whether a short or a long key press is required. We will manipulate the person feature by writing “1” or “2” in the arrow for each subject to indicate whose turn it is.
The exact procedure of one trial is as follows: After a fixation cross (300ms), subjects are presented with stimulus A (500ms), followed by the planning interval (2000ms). Subsequently they will see stimulus B (200ms) and response B will be required within a further 3000ms of stimulus B onset and will be followed by response A within another 3000ms (if it is not a no plan trial). There will be a total of 384 trials, divided into 4 blocks of 96 trials each
- …
