Search

IntroductionHand hygiene is an integral public health strategy in reducing the transmission of COVID-19, yet the past research has shown hand hygiene practices among the public is sub-optimal. This study aimed to (1) quantify hand sanitization rates among the public to minimize the transmission of COVID-19 and (2) evaluate whether different public health messaging, based on various behavior-change theories influences hand hygiene behavior in a natural setting.MethodsAn observational, naturalistic study design was used with real-time customer activity data recorded against hand sanitizer usage in a regional hardware store. Primary outcome from the study was to measure the usage ratio by counting the amount of activity versus usage of hand sanitizer per hour against individual messages based on their behavioral change technique (BCT).ResultsThere was no significant difference between the baseline message and any of the intervention messages [F(16,904) = 1.19, p = 0.279] or between BCT groups [F(3,906) = 1.33, p = 0.263]. Post hoc tests showed no significant difference between messages (social comparison, p = 0.395; information, p = 1.00; and action planning, p = 1.00).ConclusionThis study showed that even during a pandemic, hand hygiene usage rates in a public setting were similar to the past studies and that compliance did not shift dependent on the public message displayed. This raises questions on whether requirements imposed on businesses to provide hand sanitizer to patrons are an ineffective and maybe an unnecessary economic burden. A measured approach to risk and behavioral analysis surrounding the use of hand sanitizer in a pandemic is suggested as a better approach to inform public policy on the value of hand sanitizer.

It has been shown that prior experience with a task improves temporal prediction, even when the amount of prior experience with the task is often limited. The present study targeted the role of extensive training on temporal prediction. Expert and intermediate runners had to predict the time of a 5km running competition. Furthermore, after the race’s completion, participants had to estimate their running time so that it could be compared with the initial predicted time. Results show that expert runners were more accurate than intermediate runners for both predicting and estimating their running time. Furthermore, only expert runners had an estimation that was more accurate than their initial prediction. The results confirm the role of prior task experience in both temporal prediction and estimation.

For addressees to respond in a timely fashion, they cannot simply process the speaker’s utterance as it occurs and wait till it finishes. Instead, they predict both when the speaker will conclude and what linguistic forms they will use. While doing this, they must also prepare their own response. To explain this, we draw on the account proposed by Pickering and Garrod (2013a), in which addressees covertly imitate the speaker’s utterance and use this to determine the intention that underlies their upcoming utterance. They use this intention to predict when and how the utterance will end, and also to drive their own production mechanisms for preparing their response. Following Arnal and Giraud (2012), we distinguish between mechanisms that predict timing and content. In particular, we propose that the timing mechanism relies on entrainment of low-frequency oscillations between speech envelope and brain. This constrains the context that feeds into the determination of the speaker’s intention and hence the timing and form of the upcoming utterance. This approach typically leads to well-timed contributions, but also provides a mechanism for resolving conflicts, for example when there is unintended speaker overlap.

In the present study, a time discrimination task was used to investigate the effect of different contexts for intervals varying from 400 to 1600 ms. A potential time-space interaction was controlled, and participants used both manual responses (Experiments 1 and 2) and vocal responses (Experiment 3). Three ranges of durations were employed (short, middle and long), and within each range condition, three standard values were used (400, 700 and 1000 ms; 700, 1000 and 1300 ms; and 1000, 1300 and 1600 ms). Within each range, standard intervals were randomized (Experiments 1 and 3) or remained constant (Experiment 2) within a block of trials. Our results suggest that context influences time discrimination performances only when the temporal range under investigation is below 1300 ms and the temporal intervals varied within blocks. In the case of temporal intervals longer than 1300 ms, participants presented a tendency to respond long independently of the procedure used. Moreover, our results suggested that performances in a discrimination task are mainly influenced by the fact of varying standard durations within blocks, and not much by the time-space compatibility.

We investigated how conceptually informative (referent preview) and conceptually uninformative (pointer to referent’s location) visual cues affect structural choice during English transitive sentence production. Cueing the Agent or the Patient prior to presenting the target event reliably predicted the likelihood of selecting this referent as the sentential Subject, triggering, correspondingly, the choice between active and passive voice. Importantly, there was no difference in the magnitude of the general Cueing effect between the informative and uninformative cueing conditions, suggesting that attentionally driven structural selection relies on a direct automatic mapping mechanism from attentional focus to the Subject’s position in a sentence. This mechanism is, therefore, independent of accessing semantic, and possibly lexical, information about the cued referent provided by referent preview.