Everyday scale errors

Young children occasionally make scale errors – they attempt to fit their bodies into extremely small objects or attempt to fit a larger object into another, tiny, object. For example, a child might try to sit in a dollhouse-sized chair or try to stuff a large doll into it. Scale error research was originally motivated by parents' and researchers' informal accounts of these behaviors. However, scale errors have only been documented using laboratory procedures designed to promote their occurrence. To formally document the occurrence of scale errors in everyday settings, we posted a survey on the internet. Across two studies, participants reported many examples of everyday scale errors that are similar to those observed in our labs and were committed by children of the same age. These findings establish that scale errors occur in the course of children's daily lives, lending further support to the account that these behaviors stem from general aspects of visual processing.     

Imagery of errors in typing

Using a typing task we investigated whether insufficient imagination of errors and error corrections is related to duration differences between execution and imagination. In Experiment 1 spontaneous error imagination was investigated, whereas in Experiment 2 participants were specifically instructed to imagine errors. Further, in Experiment 2 we manipulated correction instructions (whether or not to correct errors) and controlled for visual feedback in executed typing (letters appearing on the screen or not). Participants executed and imagined typing proverbs of different lengths. Errors and error corrections explained a significant amount of variance of execution minus imagination differences in Experiment 1, and in Experiment 2 when participants were instructed to correct errors, but not when participants were instructed not to correct errors. In Experiment 2 participants corrected and reported more errors with than without visual feedback. However, the relation between execution − imagination duration differences and errors and error corrections was unaffected by visual feedback. The types of errors reported less often in imagination than in execution were related to processes in typing execution. We conclude that errors and error corrections are not spontaneously imagined during motor imagery, and that even when attention is drawn to their occurrence only some are imagined. This may be due to forward models not predicting all aspects of an action, imprecise forward models, or a neglect of monitoring error signals during motor imagery.     

Syntactic errors in speech

Speech errors can be used to examine the nature of syntactic processing in speech production. Using such evidence, Fay (1980a, 1980b) maintains that deep structure and transformations are psychologically real. However, an interactive activation model that generates surface syntactic structures directly can account for all the data. Most syntactic errors are substitutions: The target phrase structure is replaced by a semantically related structure. Blends of two syntactic structures are also common. Transformations cannot account for much of the data and are not necessary to explain any of them. While it is impossible to prove that transformations do not exist, syntactic theories that do not include transformations have the potential to be psychologically valid.     

Proofreading for word errors

Proofreading (i.e., reading text for the purpose of detecting and correcting typographical errors) is viewed as a component of the activity of revising text and thus is a necessary (albeit not sufficient) procedural step for enhancing the quality of a written product. The purpose of the present research was to test competing accounts of word-error detection which predict factors that may influence reading and proofreading differently. Word errors, which change a word into another word (e.g., from --> form), were selected for examination because they are unlikely to be detected by automatic spell-checking functions. Consequently, their detection still rests mostly in the hands of the human proofreader. Findings highlighted the weaknesses of existing accounts of proofreading and identified factors, such as length and frequency of the error in the English language relative to frequency of the correct word, which might play a key role in detection of word errors.     

Time errors are perceptual

Summary Methods for the measurement of time-errors (TEs) in the comparison of successive stimulus magnitudes are discussed. Combining a Thurstonian scaling method with the assumption of a fixed subjective width of the equal category, independent of stimulus level, a ratio scale for subjective differences within pairs of successive stimuli is derived. In a tone duration comparison experiment, with the TE defined in the terms of these subjective duration differences, data from four experimental groups were compared, the groups using different modes of judging and responding. Only minor effects of this factor were found, and hence it is concluded that the TE is a true perceptual phenomenon rather than an effect of response bias, criterion bias, or mediating verbal responses to the absolute level of stimulation. The quantitative results are interpreted in terms of a general model for the comparison of successive stimuli, employing the concepts of adaptation and differential weighting of sensation magnitudes.This investigation was supported by grants to the author from the University of Stockholm and from the Swedish Office of Administrative Rationalization and Economy (for computer time), and by grants to Mats Björkman and Hannes Eisler from the Swedish Council for Social Science Research, whose free consultation service at the Department of Statistics, University of Stockholm, also benefited the author.     

Dialogues on prediction errors

The recognition that computational ideas from reinforcement learning are relevant to the study of neural circuits has taken the cognitive neuroscience community by storm. A central tenet of these models is that discrepancies between actual and expected outcomes can be used for learning. Neural correlates of such prediction-error signals have been observed now in midbrain dopaminergic neurons, striatum, amygdala and even prefrontal cortex, and models incorporating prediction errors have been invoked to explain complex phenomena such as the transition from goal-directed to habitual behavior. Yet, like any revolution, the fast-paced progress has left an uneven understanding in its wake. Here, we provide answers to ten simple questions about prediction errors, with the aim of exposing both the strengths and the limitations of this active area of neuroscience research.     

Statistical analysis of timing errors.

Human rhythmic activities are variable. Cycle-to-cycle fluctuations form the behavioral observable. Traditional analysis focuses on statistical measures such as mean and variance. In this article we show that, by treating the fluctuations as a time series, one can apply techniques such as power spectra and rescaled range analysis to gain insight into the mechanisms underlying the remarkable abilities of humans to perform a variety of rhythmic movements, from maintaining memorized temporal patterns to anticipating and timing their movements to predictable sensory stimuli.     

Theoretical explanation and errors of measurement

Conclusion By using the concept of a uniformity, the Structuralists have given us a most useful means of representing approximations. In the second section of this paper, I have made use of this technique to show how we can deal with errors of measurement — imprecise explananda — in the context of theoretical explanation. As well as (I hope) providing further demonstration of the power of the Structuralist approach, this also serves to support the ontic conception of explanation by showing that it can help us resolve substantial problems in the theory of explanation.I would like to thank Professor C. U. Moulines for his kindness in reading an earlier draft of this paper, and in particular for suggesting to me to mention the points made in footnotes 12 and 13. I am also most grateful to this journal's referee for many helpful comments whereby the paper has been much improved.     

The amendment of large-magnitude aiming-movement errors

Summary The amendment of large-magnitude errors is discussed with particular reference to the correction of directional errors. It is argued that the correction of a large-magnitude error may be understood as a double-step tracking situation in which the second step reflects an artificially induced error signal. At issue is how the motor system may respond to such stimuli in rapid succession. The temporal integration of error stimuli predicts an initial response which reflects the weighted average of the step positions. This approach, however, does not explain the marked increase in peak velocity for the corrective response, compared to an equivalent single-step response. Alternatively, it has been argued that the initial response is initiated as if it were a single-step response to the initial step position and is subsequently amended. The superposition hypothesis argued that the two responses are planned in parallel and overlap in time, to be superimposed one on the other. This hypothesis does not explain changes in the direction of a double-step response at its initiation. The braking hypothesis argues that the initial response is halted and a corrective response initiated as rapidly as possible. This approach cannot explain changes in the slope of an ATF as a function of the second target-step amplitude. A model of double-step tracking is proposed which integrates the temporal integration and braking hypotheses. Since the braking of the initial response would involve the application of large forces, it is argued that braking is facilitated by the temporal integration of step stimuli. The corrective response is then implemented as rapidly as possible. The implications of these findings to the understanding of directional errors is discussed.     

Correction of errors in scientific research

Four ways to reduce scientific errors are by tests of equipment and programs, examination of results, peer review, and replication. This article describes various types of errors that may occur and procedures available for the prevention and correction of both unintentional and intentional errors in experiments that use computer programs to generate the stimuli, record the responses, or analyze the data. We describe a case study of a particular experiment that produced a result that has been found to be erroneous. The case study provides additional evidence of the essential importance of replication for the identification and elimination of scientific error.     

Cutting scores and errors of measurement

Arguments for using multiple cutting scores are theoretically inapplicable when the selection measures are fallible. The effect of errors of measurement in altering the shape of some optimum selection regions is here investigated mathematically, with numerical illustrations, for the case of two selection variables.This work was supported by contract Nonr-2752(00) between the Office of Naval Research and Educational Testing Service. Reproduction in whole or in part for any purpose of the United States Government is permitted.     

Standard errors of two-level scalability coefficients

For the construction of tests and questionnaires that require multiple raters (e.g., a child behaviour checklist completed by both parents) a novel ordinal scaling technique is currently being further developed, called two-level Mokken scale analysis. The technique uses within-rater and between-rater coefficients to assess the scalability of the test. These coefficients are generalizations of Mokken's scalability coefficients. In this paper we derived standard errors for the two-level coefficients and for their ratios. The coefficients, the estimates, the estimated standard errors and the software implementation are discussed and illustrated using a real-data example, and a small-scale simulation study demonstrates the accuracy of the estimates.     

Explaining errors in children's questions

The ability to explain the occurrence of errors in children's speech is an essential component of successful theories of language acquisition. The present study tested some generativist and constructivist predictions about error on the questions produced by ten English-learning children between 2 and 5 years of age. The analyses demonstrated that, as predicted by some generativist theories [e.g. Santelmann, L., Berk, S., Austin, J., Somashekar, S. & Lust. B. (2002). Continuity and development in the acquisition of inversion in yes/no questions: dissociating movement and inflection, Journal of Child Language, 29, 813-842], questions with auxiliary DO attracted higher error rates than those with modal auxiliaries. However, in wh-questions, questions with modals and DO attracted equally high error rates, and these findings could not be explained in terms of problems forming questions with why or negated auxiliaries. It was concluded that the data might be better explained in terms of a constructivist account that suggests that entrenched item-based constructions may be protected from error in children's speech, and that errors occur when children resort to other operations to produce questions [e.g. Dabrowska, E. (2000). From formula to schema: the acquisition of English questions. Cognitive Liguistics, 11, 83-102; Rowland, C. F. & Pine, J. M. (2000). Subject-auxiliary inversion errors and wh-question acquisition: What children do know? Journal of Child Language, 27, 157-181; Tomasello, M. (2003). Constructing a language: A usage-based theory of language acquisition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press]. However, further work on constructivist theory development is required to allow researchers to make predictions about the nature of these operations.