Andrew Crider

Williams College, Williamstown, MA, United States

Are you Andrew Crider?

Claim your profile

Publications (6)13.34 Total impact

  • ANDREW CRIDER
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Biofeedback is often regarded as a discrete discovery emerging de novo in the mid-1960s from the work of a small number of intrepid investigators and then rapidly diffusing into public and scientific consciousness. Yet this view more likely reflects the journalistic exploitation of an admittedly dramatic development than the true state of affairs. Future historians will undoubtedly describe the biofeedback movement as a predictable outcome of a Zeitgeist formed by a variety of theoretical and technical developments extending many years backward in time. For example, biofeedback research would have been unthinkable without the prior development from EEG technology of stable, high-gain amplifiers and associated sensors, packaged into commercially available polygraphs, for the simultaneous recording of multiple physiological events in the intact human subject. Nor is it likely that American psychologists would have attempted early biofeedback studies without the intellectual goading of prior developments in learning theory, especially the so-called two-factor theory of learning. This generalization, which had acquired the status of doctrine, held that visceral responses were modifiable only under Pavlovian conditioning regimes and skeletal responses only by instrumental conditioning methods (for example, Kimble, 1961). The virtual absence of supporting documentation was a clear invitation to apply feedback and reward techniques to by-then easily recordable visceral activity.As a minor contribution to this history, I would like to indicate how early studies of the instrumental modification of electrodermal activity by my colleagues and me depended greatly on a prior distinction made by Lacey and Lacey (1958) between elicited and emitted electrodermal responses. Following a brief review of the logic of these instrumental conditioning studies and their significance for the broader biofeedback movement, I will discuss recent research on the related problem of the correlates of individual differences in electrodermal activity, an issue which also stems from the seminal work of Lacey and Lacey (1958).
    Applied Psychology 06/2008; 28(1):37 - 48. · 1.52 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Andrew Crider
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Electrodermal response (EDR) lability is a psychophysiological trait reflecting stable individual differences in electrodermal activation as indexed by frequency measures of phasic EDR activity. There is no consistent evidence that EDR lability reflects dispositional or clinical anxiety. However, EDR lability appears to be related to individual differences in the overt expression of emotional and antagonistic impulses. Greater EDR lability is associated with a relatively undemonstrative and agreeable disposition, whereas greater EDR stability is associated with a relatively expressive and antagonistic disposition. The inverse relationship between EDR lability and the expression of emotional and antagonistic impulses suggests that EDR lability may reflect individual differences in the effortful control of such expression. This hypothesis is consistent with cognitive effort interpretations of phasic EDR activity, with evidence of the sensitivity of phasic EDR activity to capacity-demanding tasks, and with evidence of reduced spare capacity among EDR labile individuals under cognitive challenge. Individual differences in effortful self-control may explain the association of greater EDR lability with essential hypertension and greater EDR stability with forms of antisocial behavior.
    Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback 06/2008; 33(3):141-8. · 1.13 Impact Factor
  • [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We combined experimental cognitive and behavior genetic methods to investigate storage and executive components of working memory in 663 middle-aged male twins. A single latent factor model indicated that digits forward (storage) and two-digit transformation (executive + storage) scores were influenced by the same genes. Additional executive demands in digit transformation appeared to increase the variance of individual genetic differences from 25% for digits forward to 48% and 53% for the digit transformation scores. Although it was not the best model, a two-factor model also provided a good fit to the data. This model suggested the possibility of a second set of genes specifically influencing the executive component. We discuss the findings in the context of research suggesting that new genetic influences come into play if demand continues to increase beyond a certain threshold, a threshold that may change with task difficulty and with age.
    The Journals of Gerontology Series B Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences 04/2008; 63(2):P84-91. · 3.01 Impact Factor
  • David Shapiro, Andrew Crider
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: An operant discrimination procedure was used to determine whether human subjects show shifts in palmar skin potential response rate under varying schedules of reinforcement. In Experiment I, a monetary reinforcer was either given or subtracted on a short fixed ratio schedule during alternating 5-min periods. In Experiment II, the schedules alternated between 10-min periods in which either a variable ninnber of responses or long interresponse times were reinforced. Each experiment consisted of seven subjects tested over several sessions. The results indicated differences in response rates consonant with changes in the scheduling of reinforcement. Concurrent recordings of respiration, heart rate, and skin potential level showed that the reinforcement effects were generally specific to the skin potential response variable.
    Psychophysiology 01/2007; 4(2):168 - 175. · 3.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Bibliographic searches identified 14 controlled and uncontrolled outcome evaluations of biofeedback-based treatments for temporomandibular disorders published since 1978. This literature includes two randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of each of three types of biofeedback treatment: (1) surface electromyographic (SEMG) training of the masticatory muscles, (2) SEMG training combined with adjunctive cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) techniques, and (3) biofeedback-assisted relaxation training (BART). A detailed review of these six RCTs, supplemented with information from non-RCT findings, was conducted to determine the extent to which each type of intervention met treatment efficacy criteria promulgated by the Association for Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback (AAPB). We conclude that SEMG training with adjunctive CBT is an efficacious treatment for temporomandibular disorders and that both SEMG training as the sole intervention and BART are probably efficacious treatments. We discuss guidelines for designing and reporting research in this area and suggest possible directions for future studies.
    Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback 01/2006; 30(4):333-45. · 1.13 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [show abstract] [hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We examined individual differences in nonspecific electrodermal response (EDR) lability in terms of retest stability, cross-situational consistency, and heritability in a sample of 345 adult monozygotic and dizygotic twin pairs. We also examined the phenotypic and genetic relationships between EDR lability and speed of habituation of the specific EDR to a nonsignal stimulus. Individual variation in EDR lability showed substantial retest stability and cross-situational consistency and also predicted resistance to specific EDR habituation. Structural equation modeling showed that the covariation among EDR lability measures and resistance to specific EDR habituation operated through a single latent phenotype, which was influenced in approximately equal measure by genetic and unique environmental factors. We discuss these findings in terms of an information processing account of individual differences in phasic EDR activation.
    Psychophysiology 08/2004; 41(4):501-9. · 3.26 Impact Factor