Psychophysiological indices of recognition memory

It has recently been found that during recognition memory tests participants’ pupils dilate more when they view old items compared to novel items. This thesis sought to replicate this novel ‘‘Pupil Old/New Effect’’ (PONE) and to determine its relationship to implicit and explicit mnemonic processes, the veracity of participants’ responses, and the analogous Event-Related Potential (ERP) old/new effect. Across 9 experiments, pupil-size was measured with a video-based eye-tracker during a variety of recognition tasks, and, in the case of Experiment 8, with concurrent Electroencephalography (EEG). The main findings of this thesis are that: - the PONE occurs in a standard explicit test of recognition memory but not in “implicit” tests of either perceptual fluency or artificial grammar learning; - the PONE is present even when participants are asked to give false behavioural answers in a malingering task, or are asked not to respond at all; - the PONE is present when attention is divided both at learning and during recognition; - the PONE is accompanied by a posterior ERP old/new effect; - the PONE does not occur when participants are asked to read previously encountered words without making a recognition decision; - the PONE does not occur if participants preload an “old/new” response; - the PONE is not enhanced by repetition during learning. These findings are discussed in the context of current models of recognition memory and other psychophysiological indices of mnemonic processes. It is argued that together these findings suggest that the increase in pupil-size which occurs when participants encounter previously studied items is not under conscious control and may reflect primarily recollective processes associated with recognition memory

Keeping an eye on the truth: Pupil size, recognition memory and malingering

Background: Estimates of the incidence of malingering in patient populations vary from 1 to 12%, rising to ∼25% in patients seeking financial compensation. Malingering is particularly difficult to detect when patients feign poor performance on neuropsychological tests (see Hutchinson, 2001). One strategy to detect malingering has been to identify psychophysiological markers associated with deception. Tardif, Barry, Fox and Johnstone (2000) used electroencephalogram (EEG) recording to measure event related potentials (ERPs) during a standard recognition memory test. Previous research has documented an ERP “old/new effect” – late positive parietal ERPs are larger when participants view old, learned words compared to new words during recognition. Tardif et al. reasoned that if this effect is not under conscious control, then it should be equally detectable in people feigning amnesia as in participants performing to their best ability. As predicted, they found no difference in the magnitude and topography of the old/new ERP effect between participants who were asked to feign amnesia whilst performing the test and those asked to perform to their best ability. Whilst this approach shows some promise, EEG is comparatively time consuming and expensive. Previous research has shown that during recognition memory tests, participants' pupils dilate more when they view old items compared to new items (Otero, Weeks, and Hutton, 2006; Vo et al., 2008). This pupil “old/new effect” may present a simpler means by which to establish whether participants are feigning amnesia. Method: We used video-based oculography to compare changes in pupil size during a recognition memory test when participants were given standard recognition memory instructions, instructions to feign amnesia and instructions to report all items as new. Due to constant fluctuation in pupil size over time, and variation between individuals, a pupil dilation ratio (PDR) was calculated that represented the maximum pupil size during the trial as a proportion of the maximum during baseline. Results: Participants' pupils dilated more to old items compared to new items under all three instruction conditions (F(1.25) = 47.02, MSE < 0.001, p < .001, ηp2 = .65). There were no significant differences between baseline pupil size (F(1.63,40.76) = 1.90, p = .17, ns). Conclusions: The finding that under standard recognition memory instructions, participants' relative increase in pupil size is greater when they view old items compared to new items replicates previous research documenting the pupil old/new effect. That the effect persists, even when participants give erroneous responses during recognition, suggests that the “pupil old/new effect” is not under conscious control and may therefore have potential use in clinical settings as a simple means with which to detect whether patients are feigning amnesia

Evaluating resilience-based programs for schools using a systematic consultative review

Resilient approaches to working in school contexts take many different forms. This makes them difficult to evaluate, copy and compare. Conventional academic literature reviews of these approaches are often unable to deal with the complexity of the interventions in a way that leads to a meaningful comparative appraisal. Further, they rarelysummarise and critique the literature in a way that is of practical use to people actually wishing to learn how to intervene in an educational context, such as parents andpractitioners. This includes teachers and classroom assistants, who can experience reviews as frustrating, difficult to digest and hard to learn from. Applying findings to their own particular settings, without precisely replicating the approach described, presents serious challenges to them. The aim of this paper is to explain how and why school-basedresilience approaches for young people aged 12-18 do (or do not) work in particular contexts, holding in mind the parents and practitioners who engage with young people on a daily basis, and whom we consulted in the empirical element of our work, as our audience.Further, we attempt to present the results in a way that answer parents’ and practitioners’ most commonly asked questions about how best to work with young people usingresilience-based approaches. The review is part of a broader study looking more generally at resilience-based interventions for this age group and young adults. We offer a critical overview of approaches and techniques that might best support those young people who need them the most.Resilient approaches to working in school contexts take many different forms. This makes them difficult to evaluate, copy and compare. Conventional academic literature reviews of these approaches are often unable to deal with the complexity of the interventions in a way that leads to a meaningful comparative appraisal. Further, they rarelysummarise and critique the literature in a way that is of practical use to people actually wishing to learn how to intervene in an educational context, such as parents andpractitioners. This includes teachers and classroom assistants, who can experience reviews as frustrating, difficult to digest and hard to learn from. Applying findings to their own particular settings, without precisely replicating the approach described, presents serious challenges to them. The aim of this paper is to explain how and why school-basedresilience approaches for young people aged 12-18 do (or do not) work in particular contexts, holding in mind the parents and practitioners who engage with young people on a daily basis, and whom we consulted in the empirical element of our work, as our audience.Further, we attempt to present the results in a way that answer parents’ and practitioners’ most commonly asked questions about how best to work with young people usingresilience-based approaches. The review is part of a broader study looking more generally at resilience-based interventions for this age group and young adults. We offer a critical overview of approaches and techniques that might best support those young people who need them the most

Resilience approaches to supporting young people's mental health: Appraising the evidence base for schools and communities

This guide is designed to help anybody who wants to develop or commission a resilience program to work across a school or local area to support young people at risk of developing mental health difficulties. In her role as advisor to the Big Lottery Fund's HeadStart programme in England, Professor Angie Hart developed the methodological approach outlined below based on her academic research, her work as a child mental health practitioner and her lived experience of supporting children with mental health issues. In addition, the research undertaken and the production of the guide has been supported by the University of Brighton and the Economicand Social Research Council as part of Imagine, an international research project exploring and developing resilience approaches to supporting disadvantaged people. Dr Becky Heaver contributed to researching the different resilience approaches, and appraising them for this guide

Evaluating resilience-based programs for schools using a systematic consultative review

Resilient approaches to working in school contexts take many different forms. This makes them difficult to evaluate, copy and compare. Conventional academic literature reviews of these approaches are often unable to deal with the complexity of the interventions in a way that leads to a meaningful comparative appraisal. Further, they rarelysummarise and critique the literature in a way that is of practical use to people actually wishing to learn how to intervene in an educational context, such as parents andpractitioners. This includes teachers and classroom assistants, who can experience reviews as frustrating, difficult to digest and hard to learn from. Applying findings to their own particular settings, without precisely replicating the approach described, presents serious challenges to them. The aim of this paper is to explain how and why school-basedresilience approaches for young people aged 12-18 do (or do not) work in particular contexts, holding in mind the parents and practitioners who engage with young people on a daily basis, and whom we consulted in the empirical element of our work, as our audience.Further, we attempt to present the results in a way that answer parents’ and practitioners’ most commonly asked questions about how best to work with young people usingresilience-based approaches. The review is part of a broader study looking more generally at resilience-based interventions for this age group and young adults. We offer a critical overview of approaches and techniques that might best support those young people who need them the most.Resilient approaches to working in school contexts take many different forms. This makes them difficult to evaluate, copy and compare. Conventional academic literature reviews of these approaches are often unable to deal with the complexity of the interventions in a way that leads to a meaningful comparative appraisal. Further, they rarelysummarise and critique the literature in a way that is of practical use to people actually wishing to learn how to intervene in an educational context, such as parents andpractitioners. This includes teachers and classroom assistants, who can experience reviews as frustrating, difficult to digest and hard to learn from. Applying findings to their own particular settings, without precisely replicating the approach described, presents serious challenges to them. The aim of this paper is to explain how and why school-basedresilience approaches for young people aged 12-18 do (or do not) work in particular contexts, holding in mind the parents and practitioners who engage with young people on a daily basis, and whom we consulted in the empirical element of our work, as our audience.Further, we attempt to present the results in a way that answer parents’ and practitioners’ most commonly asked questions about how best to work with young people usingresilience-based approaches. The review is part of a broader study looking more generally at resilience-based interventions for this age group and young adults. We offer a critical overview of approaches and techniques that might best support those young people who need them the most

Uniting resilience research and practice with an inequalities approach

The concept of resilience has evolved, from an individual-level characteristic to a wider ecological notion that takes into account broader person–environment interactions, generating an increased interest in health and well-being research, practice and policy. At the same time, the research and policy-based attempts to build resilience are increasingly under attack for responsibilizing individuals and maintaining, rather than challenging, the inequitable structure of society. When adversities faced by children and young people result from embedded inequality and social disadvantage, resilience-based knowledge has the potential to influence the wider adversity context. Therefore, it is vital that conceptualizations of resilience encompass this potential for marginalized people to challenge and transform aspects of their adversity, without holding them responsible for the barriers they face. This article outlines and provides examples from an approach that we are taking in our research and practice, which we have called Boingboing resilience. We argue that it is possible to bring resilience research and practice together with a social justice approach, giving equal and simultaneous attention to individuals and to the wider system. To achieve this goal, we suggest future research should have a co-produced and inclusive research design that overcomes the dilemma of agency and responsibility, contains a socially transformative element, and has the potential to empower children, young people, and families