You Don't See What I See:Individual Differences in the Perception of Meaning from Visual Stimuli

Everyone has their own unique version of the visual world and there has been growing interest in understanding the way that personality shapes one's perception. Here, we investigated meaningful visual experiences in relation to the personality dimension of schizotypy. In a novel approach to this issue, a non-clinical sample of subjects (total n = 197) were presented with calibrated images of scenes, cartoons and faces of varying visibility embedded in noise; the spatial properties of the images were constructed to mimic the natural statistics of the environment. In two experiments, subjects were required to indicate what they saw in a large number of unique images, both with and without actual meaningful structure. The first experiment employed an open-ended response paradigm and used a variety of different images in noise; the second experiment only presented a series of faces embedded in noise, and required a forced-choice response from the subjects. The results in all conditions indicated that a high positive schizotypy score was associated with an increased tendency to perceive complex meaning in images comprised purely of random visual noise. Individuals high in positive schizotypy seemed to be employing a looser criterion (response bias) to determine what constituted a 'meaningful' image, while also being significantly less sensitive at the task than those low in positive schizotypy. Our results suggest that differences in perceptual performance for individuals high in positive schizotypy are not related to increased suggestibility or susceptibility to instruction, as had previously been suggested. Instead, the observed reductions in sensitivity along with increased response bias toward seeing something that is not there, indirectly implicated subtle neurophysiological differences associated with the personality dimension of schizotypy, that are theoretically pertinent to the continuum of schizophrenia and hallucination-proneness

Systematic biases in cross-sectional community studies may underestimate the effectiveness of stop-smoking medications

INTRODUCTION: Randomized, controlled trials typically indicate stop-smoking medications (SSMs: e.g., Varenicline, Bupropion, and over-the-counter nicotine replacement therapies) to be effective, whereas cross-sectional community-based studies have found them to be less effective, ineffective, or even associated with higher risk of relapse. Consequently, some critics have suggested SSMs have no useful applications in “real-world” settings. This discrepancy may, however, be due to systematic biases affecting cross-sectional survey outcomes. Namely, failed quit attempts where SSMs were used may be better recalled than failed unassisted attempts. Moreover, smokers who choose to quit using SSMs may be more addicted and thus less likely to succeed. Either of these factors would lead to an over-representation of failed quit attempts among SSM users in cross-sectional surveys even if there were real benefits. METHODS: We report on data from the International Tobacco Control 4-country cohort study to examine the relationship between SSM use, level of nicotine addiction, and the reported date since the start of participants’ (N = 1,101) most recent quit attempt. RESULTS: The last quit attempt was reported to have begun longer ago among participants who used SSMs than those who did not. Scores on the Heaviness of Smoking Index, measuring addiction severity, were also higher among SSM users, with no interactions. CONCLUSION: Better recall of quit attempts and stronger addiction to nicotine are two characteristics found more often among smokers using SSMs compared with self-quitters, which could potentially bias the assessed effects of SSMs on cessation outcomes in cross-sectional surveys

Associations between vaping and relapse to smoking: preliminary findings from a longitudinal survey in the UK.

Background: Most smokers attempting to quit relapse. There is little evidence whether the use of e-cigarettes (‘vaping’) increases or decreases relapse. This study aimed to assess 1) whether vaping predicted relapse among ex-smokers, and 2) among ex-smokers who vaped, whether vaping characteristics predicted relapse. Methods: Longitudinal web-based survey of smokers, recent ex-smokers and vapers in the UK, baseline in May/June 2016 (n = 3334), follow-up in September 2017 (n = 1720). Those abstinent from smoking ≥ 2 months at baseline and followed up were included. Aim 1: Relapse during follow-up was regressed onto baseline vaping status, age, gender, income, nicotine replacement therapy use and time quit smoking (n = 374). Aim 2: Relapse was regressed onto baseline vaping frequency, device type, nicotine strength and time quit smoking (n = 159). Results: Overall, 39.6% relapsed. Compared with never use (35.9%), past/ever (45.9%; adjOR = 1.13; 95% CI, 0.61–2.07) and daily vaping (34.5%; adjOR = 0.61; 95% CI, 0.61–1.89) had similar odds of relapse, for non-daily vaping evidence of increased relapse was inconclusive (65.0%; adjOR = 2.45; 95% CI, 0.85–7.08). Among vapers, non-daily vaping was associated with higher relapse than daily vaping (adjOR = 3.88; 95% CI, 1.10–13.62). Compared with modular devices (18.9% relapse), tank models (45.6%; adjOR = 3.63; 95% CI, 1.33–9.95) were associated with increased relapse; evidence was unclear for disposable/cartridge refillable devices (41.9%; adjOR = 2.83; 95% CI, 0.90–8.95). Nicotine strength had no clear association with relapse. Conclusion: Relapse to smoking is likely to be more common among ex-smokers vaping infrequently or using less advanced devices. Research into the effects of vaping on relapse needs to consider vaping characteristics

Harm perceptions of e‐cigarettes and other nicotine products in a UK sample.

Findings: Relative to smoking, 57.3% perceived EC and 63.4% NRT to be less harmful; 25.4% perceived EC to be less addictive; and 32.2% thought replacing smoking with EC reduced health harms a great deal. Participants were less likely to endorse these beliefs if they had never vaped, and participants who had inaccurate nicotine knowledge were less likely to endorse all these beliefs apart from the addictiveness of EC. The main concerns about EC were a lack of research (48.3%), regulation or quality control (37.8%) and harmfulness of chemicals (41.6%). Conclusions: Large proportions of UK smokers and ex‐smokers overestimate the relative harmfulness of e‐cigarettes and nicotine replacement therapy compared with smoking; misattributing smoking harms to nicotine is associated with increased misperceptions

Correlations between questionnaire measures and performance on the two visual tasks used in Experiment 1.

<p>Correlations between questionnaire measures and performance on the two visual tasks used in Experiment 1.</p

Creation of stimuli for Perception of Meaning (POM) task.

<p>Flow diagram representing the creation of the stimuli for the POM task used in Experiment 1 (1a) and Experiment 2 (1b). F_C = central frequency.</p