In the self-referential condition,Schizophr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC

In the self-referential condition,Schizophr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 April 1.Harvey et al.Pageparticipants judged whether each personality trait described them. In all conditions, participants responded with a two-alternative forced-choice button press (i.e. “uppercase” or “lowercase” for structural; “desirable” or “not desirable” for social desirability; and “me” or “not me” for self-referential condition). Trials were presented in an intermixed and randomized fashion; not in blocks of the same trial type. Participants were not explicitly asked to remember the word adjectives. Four versions of the task were developed, using different combinations of words, and each subject received only one version. For each version, three lists of words (total of 78) were randomly assigned to the encoding phase (one list each for structural, social desirability, and self-referential conditions), and three lists were used as new words during recognition phase. Half of the word adjectives were presented in uppercase and half in lowercase; half were positive and half were negative valence. During encoding, each trial consisted of a fixation crosshair displayed for 500 ms, L868275 custom synthesis followed by the condition instructions (i.e. “self”, “social desirability”, “letter case”) displayed for 2000 ms, followed by the target adjective for another 2000 ms. Instructions remained in the upper part of the screen during the presentation of the target adjective to reduce memory demands. After the trait adjective, subjects made their choice. Participants were encouraged to respond as soon as they knew the answer. When they made their response, another fixation point was presented for 500 msec. Both response and reaction time were recorded. The encoding phase was followed after a 15 min delay by an unexpected recognition task. Subjects were instructed to discriminate between 78 old and 78 new adjectives presented in a pseudorandom order. Each adjective was presented individually with a two-alternative forced-choice response (i.e. “old” or “new”). There was no time limit for the response. The task was generated using E-Prime software (Psychology Software Tools) and performed on a desktop PC computer. Statistical analyses–For the encoding phase, mean response time was calculated for each task condition. For the structural condition, we calculated the letter case judgment accuracy (i.e. either lowercase or uppercase). For the social desirability condition, we calculated the desirability classification accuracy (i.e. either high or low social desirability) for each adjective relative to available norms . Similarly, for the self-referential condition, we calculated the mean proportion of self-attribution for positive and negative adjectives separately. For the recognition phase, we first calculated the hit rate (i.e. proportion of old adjectives correctly recognized) for each condition and each Luteolin 7-glucoside web valence separately, and we calculated a false alarm rate (i.e. proportion of new adjectives incorrectly identified as old adjectives) for each valence. Calculation of separate false alarm rates for each condition was not possible because new words did not belong to a condition. To obtain a quantitative measure of correct performance, we used d-prime (d). This index of sensitivity is used in signal detection theory and is calculated based on hit rate and false-alarm rate, but is independent of response bias. A higher d indicates that the signal can be more readily detected.In the self-referential condition,Schizophr Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2012 April 1.Harvey et al.Pageparticipants judged whether each personality trait described them. In all conditions, participants responded with a two-alternative forced-choice button press (i.e. “uppercase” or “lowercase” for structural; “desirable” or “not desirable” for social desirability; and “me” or “not me” for self-referential condition). Trials were presented in an intermixed and randomized fashion; not in blocks of the same trial type. Participants were not explicitly asked to remember the word adjectives. Four versions of the task were developed, using different combinations of words, and each subject received only one version. For each version, three lists of words (total of 78) were randomly assigned to the encoding phase (one list each for structural, social desirability, and self-referential conditions), and three lists were used as new words during recognition phase. Half of the word adjectives were presented in uppercase and half in lowercase; half were positive and half were negative valence. During encoding, each trial consisted of a fixation crosshair displayed for 500 ms, followed by the condition instructions (i.e. “self”, “social desirability”, “letter case”) displayed for 2000 ms, followed by the target adjective for another 2000 ms. Instructions remained in the upper part of the screen during the presentation of the target adjective to reduce memory demands. After the trait adjective, subjects made their choice. Participants were encouraged to respond as soon as they knew the answer. When they made their response, another fixation point was presented for 500 msec. Both response and reaction time were recorded. The encoding phase was followed after a 15 min delay by an unexpected recognition task. Subjects were instructed to discriminate between 78 old and 78 new adjectives presented in a pseudorandom order. Each adjective was presented individually with a two-alternative forced-choice response (i.e. “old” or “new”). There was no time limit for the response. The task was generated using E-Prime software (Psychology Software Tools) and performed on a desktop PC computer. Statistical analyses–For the encoding phase, mean response time was calculated for each task condition. For the structural condition, we calculated the letter case judgment accuracy (i.e. either lowercase or uppercase). For the social desirability condition, we calculated the desirability classification accuracy (i.e. either high or low social desirability) for each adjective relative to available norms . Similarly, for the self-referential condition, we calculated the mean proportion of self-attribution for positive and negative adjectives separately. For the recognition phase, we first calculated the hit rate (i.e. proportion of old adjectives correctly recognized) for each condition and each valence separately, and we calculated a false alarm rate (i.e. proportion of new adjectives incorrectly identified as old adjectives) for each valence. Calculation of separate false alarm rates for each condition was not possible because new words did not belong to a condition. To obtain a quantitative measure of correct performance, we used d-prime (d). This index of sensitivity is used in signal detection theory and is calculated based on hit rate and false-alarm rate, but is independent of response bias. A higher d indicates that the signal can be more readily detected.