Key result
High arousal improves motor task performance vs. low arousal, but shows no benefit for verbal learning.
Why the study?
The study aimed to determine whether individuals' most active physiological index relates systematically to their task performance under different arousal conditions.
Arousal state and individual physiological response patterns influence performance on motor tasks.
High arousal may boost motor but not verbal task performance; leaves open whether individual physiological response patterns predict outcomes in applied settings.
Two groups of 25 Ss were given three different tasks to perform, (1) a verbal paired-associate learning task, (2) a pursuit rotor task, and (3) a finger dexterity task. One group performed the tasks under high arousal (electric shock) and the other under low arousal (no shock). A number of physiological measures, including muscle tension, heart rate, skin resistance, and blood pressure, were also recorded. On the basis of these physiological measures, each S was classified according to the physiological function in which he showed the greatest relative activity over the three tasks. This was done in order to determine whether S's most active physiological index was related in any systematic way to his task performance. Results showed that neither arousal condition nor most active index was related to performance on the verbal learning task. On the two motor tasks, however, performance was, in general, better under high arousal than under low arousal, and, in addition, varied with S's most active physiological index. It appears, therefore, that 5"s typical mode of channelling activation may influence his performance on certain tasks.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
McNulty et al. (1966) studied this question. High arousal (electric shock) vs. Low arousal (no shock) was evaluated on Task performance on verbal learning, pursuit rotor, and finger dexterity tasks. High arousal via electric shock improved performance on motor tasks compared to low arousal, but had no effect on verbal learning task performance.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: