Knowing things and going places

When I say “I know Sarah,” or “I know Berlin,” what sort of knowledge am I claiming? Such knowledge of a particular is, I claim, not reducible to either propositional knowledge-that or to traditional physical know-how. Mere, bare knowledge by acquaintance also does not capture the kind of knowledge being claimed here. Using knowledge of a place as my central example, I argue that this kind of knowledge-of, or “objectual knowledge” as it is sometimes called, is of a distinctive epistemological sort. It is a genre of inherently first-personal aesthetic knowledge, but it also, like know-how, involves active skill. I end by exploring a couple of classic problems in aesthetic epistemology, applied to the case of knowledge-of as active aesthetic knowledge.     

Six adult male rhesus monkeys did not learn from the choices of a conspecific shown in videos

Animal Cognition - There is substantial evidence of group-specific behaviors in wild animals that are thought to be socially transmitted. Yet experimental studies with monkeys have reported...     

“Sugary drinks” and graphic warning labels: Critique of a recent U.S. study of parents' beverage choices for their children

A laboratory experiment by U.S. public health researchers Hall et al. claimed to demonstrate that a graphic picture-and-text warning label placed on so-called sugary drinks would substantially reduce parents' purchase of them for their children. Hall et al., however, misclassified the alleged “sugary drinks,” omitting those containing natural but equally harmful sugars such as fructose in fruit juice and lactose in milk. They also implied that artificially sweetened “non-sugary” drinks are harmless when available research indicates otherwise. The experiment was further invalidated by the fact that warning labels are illegal in the U.S., and those that Hall et al. used would not be permitted in any case because they partially obscured the manufacturer's brand label. There were many other methodological problems with Hall et al.'s experiment, among them the failure to do what any competent consumer researcher would do—namely ask the parents afterwards why they made the choices that they did.     

Premature conclusions about the signal-to-noise ratio in structural equation modeling research: A commentary on Yuan and Fang (2023)

In a recent article published in this journal, Yuan and Fang (British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 2023) suggest comparing structural equation modeling (SEM), also known as covariance-based SEM (CB-SEM), estimated by normal-distribution-based maximum likelihood (NML), to regression analysis with (weighted) composites estimated by least squares (LS) in terms of their signal-to-noise ratio (SNR). They summarize their findings in the statement that “[c]ontrary to the common belief that CB-SEM is the preferred method for the analysis of observational data, this article shows that regression analysis via weighted composites yields parameter estimates with much smaller standard errors, and thus corresponds to greater values of the [SNR].” In our commentary, we show that Yuan and Fang have made several incorrect assumptions and claims. Consequently, we recommend that empirical researchers not base their methodological choice regarding CB-SEM and regression analysis with composites on the findings of Yuan and Fang as these findings are premature and require further research.     

Heterogeneous heterogeneity by default: Testing categorical moderators in mixed-effects meta-analysis

Categorical moderators are often included in mixed-effects meta-analysis to explain heterogeneity in effect sizes. An assumption in tests of categorical moderator effects is that of a constant between-study variance across all levels of the moderator. Although it rarely receives serious thought, there can be statistical ramifications to upholding this assumption. We propose that researchers should instead default to assuming unequal between-study variances when analysing categorical moderators. To achieve this, we suggest using a mixed-effects location-scale model (MELSM) to allow group-specific estimates for the between-study variance. In two extensive simulation studies, we show that in terms of Type I error and statistical power, little is lost by using the MELSM for moderator tests, but there can be serious costs when an equal variance mixed-effects model (MEM) is used. Most notably, in scenarios with balanced sample sizes or equal between-study variance, the Type I error and power rates are nearly identical between the MEM and the MELSM. On the other hand, with imbalanced sample sizes and unequal variances, the Type I error rate under the MEM can be grossly inflated or overly conservative, whereas the MELSM does comparatively well in controlling the Type I error across the majority of cases. A notable exception where the MELSM did not clearly outperform the MEM was in the case of few studies (e.g., 5). With respect to power, the MELSM had similar or higher power than the MEM in conditions where the latter produced non-inflated Type 1 error rates. Together, our results support the idea that assuming unequal between-study variances is preferred as a default strategy when testing categorical moderators.     

Facial comparison behaviour of forensic facial examiners

Facial examiners make visual comparisons of face images to establish the identities of persons in police investigations. This study utilised eye-tracking and an individual differences approach to investigate whether these experts exhibit specialist viewing behaviours during identification, by comparing facial examiners with forensic fingerprint analysts and untrained novices across three tasks. These comprised of face matching under unlimited (Experiment 1) and time-restricted viewing (Experiment 2), and with a feature-comparison protocol derived from examiner casework procedures (Experiment 3). Facial examiners exhibited individual differences in facial comparison accuracy and did not consistently outperform fingerprint analysts and novices. Their behaviour was also marked by similarities to the comparison groups in terms of how faces were viewed, as evidenced from eye movements, and how faces were perceived, based on the made feature judgements and identification decisions. These findings further understanding of how facial comparisons are performed and clarify the nature of examiner expertise.     

Insights into computational thinking from think-aloud interviews: A systematic review

This systematic review examines 35 empirical studies featuring the use of think-aloud interviews in computational thinking (CT) research. Findings show that think-aloud interviews (1) are typically conducted in Computer Science classrooms and with K-12 students; (2) are usually combined with other exploratory CT assessment tools; (3) have the potential to benefit learners with special needs and identify the competency gaps through involving diverse participants; (4) are conducted in the absence of cognitive models and standard procedures; and (5) display insufficient definitional and methodological rigor. Theoretically, this review presents a systematic assessment about the application of think-aloud interviews in CT studies and identifies the limitations in existing CT-related think-aloud studies. Practically, this review serves as a reference for studying the cognitive processes during CT problem-solving and provides suggestions for CT researchers who intend to incorporate think-aloud interviews in their studies.     

An evaluation of the convergent validity of a face-to-face and virtual neuropsychological assessment counter balanced

The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the need for further research evaluating the validity of conducting a battery of neuropsychological assessments virtually compared with face-to-face administration. Previous research has suggested that some neuropsychological assessments yield valid results when administered virtually, however, much of the previous research focused on older adults. To determine the validity of virtually administered neuropsychological tests, 28 healthy participants were assessed using a within-subjects, counter-balanced design. Participants completed a neuropsychological assessment battery covering tests of general intellectual functioning, memory and attention, executive functioning, language and information processing speed, as well as effort. There was no significant difference between face-to-face administration of the neuropsychological battery compared with virtual administration for the majority of the tests used. However, there were significant differences in the Colour Naming Task, with participants making fewer errors on the colour naming task and inhibition/switching task when administered virtually compared with face-to-face administration. There was also a significant age cohort effect in the inhibition/switching task. There was also a trending significant difference in mode of administration for the Verbal Fluency Task. Virtually administered neuropsychological assessments largely provide a valid alternative to face-to-face assessments; however, consideration must be given to test selection as well as the population of participants that are being assessed. Other important considerations must focus on preserving the security and integrity of test materials, as well as administration in a medico-legal setting. Future research should focus on validating assessments with specific patient populations and developing a neuropsychological assessment battery using information technology.