Children’s scale errors and object processing: Early evidence for cross-cultural differences

Scale errors are observed when young children make mistakes by attempting to put their bodies into miniature versions of everyday objects. Such errors have been argued to arise from children’s insufficient integration of size into their object representations. The current study investigated whether Japanese and UK children’s (18–24 months old, N = 80) visual exploration in a categorization task related to their scale error production. UK children who showed greater local processing made more scale errors, whereas Japanese children, who overall showed greater global processing, showed no such relationship. These results raise the possibility that children’s suppression of scale errors emerges not from attention to size per se, but from a critical integration of global (i.e., size) and local (i.e., object features) information during object processing, and provide evidence that this mechanism differs cross-culturally.     

When and how did you go wrong? Characterizing mild functional difficulties in older adults during an everyday task

ABSTRACT

Mild functional difficulties associated with cognitive aging may be reliably measured by coding “micro-errors” during everyday tasks, like meal preparation. Micro-errors made by 25 older adult and 48 younger adults were coded on four dimensions to evaluate the influence of: 1) poor error monitoring; 2) goal decay; 3) competition for response selection when switching to a new subtask; and 4) interference from distractor objects. Micro-errors made by young adults under a dual task load also were analyzed to determine the influence of overall performance level. Older adults’ micro-errors were observed when switching to a new subtask and to unrelated distractors. Slowed error monitoring and goal decay also influenced micro-errors in older adults, but not significantly more so than younger adults under the dual task. Interventions to reduce interference from distractors and to increase attention at critical choice points during tasks may optimize everyday functioning and preclude decline in older adults.     

Goodness-of-fit and confidence intervals of approximate models

If the model for the data are strictly speaking incorrect, then how can one test whether the model fits? Standard goodness-of-fit (GOF) tests rely on strictly correct or incorrect models. But in practice the correct model is not assumed to be available. It would still be of interest to determine how good or how bad the approximation is. But how can this be achieved? If it is determined that a model is a good approximation and hence a good explanation of the data, how can reliable confidence intervals be constructed? In this paper, an attempt is made to answer the above questions. Several GOF tests and methods of constructing confidence intervals are evaluated both in a simulation and with real data from the internet-based daily news memory test.     

A widely applicable extension of the random effects two-way layout: Its definition and statistical analysis based on group invariance

A type of data layout that may be considered as an extension of the two-way random effects analysis of variance is characterized and modeled based on group invariance. The data layout seems to be suitable for several scenarios in psychometrics, including the one in which multiple measurements are taken on each of a set of variables, and the measurements can be divided into exchangeable subsets. The algebraic structure of the model is studied, which leads to results that are applicable to such problems as estimating correlation matrix corrected for attenuation and testing symmetry hypotheses.The author would like to thank NIH for support through grants M01 RR00044 and P01 DE13539, and NSF and ASA Survey Section for a travel grant which allowed him to present this paper as an invited young researcher at the Conference in Celebration of Wayne A. Fuller's 70th birthday.     

Prediction Errors and Attention in the Presence and Absence of Feedback

ABSTRACT— Contemporary theories of learning typically assume that learning is driven by prediction errors—in other words, that we learn more when our predictions turn out to be incorrect than we do when our predictions are correct. Results from the recording of electrical brain activity suggest one mechanism by which this might happen; we seem to direct visual attention toward the likely causes of previous prediction errors. This can happen very rapidly—within less than 200 milliseconds of the error-causing object being presented. It is tempting to infer that if learning is driven by prediction errors, then little can be learned in the absence of feedback. Such a conclusion is unwarranted. In fact, the substantial learning that is sometimes the result of simple exposure to objects can also be explained by processes of directing attention toward the likely causes of previous prediction errors.     

A primer on the understanding of meta-analysis

ObjectivesThe purpose of the present paper is to provide a primer on the understanding of meta-analysis.Design and methodAfter presenting the rationale behind meta-analysis, the present paper defines statistical artifacts of sampling error and measurement.FindingsExamples show that statistical artifacts influence the correlation coefficient. The paper also explains the notions of confidence intervals and credibility intervals and how correlations corrected for sampling error and measurement error are calculated.ConclusionsThe paper concludes by explaining the notion of second-order sampling error and moderator meta-analysis.     

Infants' understanding of actions performed by mechanical devices

Recent research suggests that 9-month-old infants tested in a modified version of the A-not-B search task covertly imitate actions performed by the experimenter. The current study examines whether infants also simulate actions performed by mechanical devices, and whether this varies with whether or not they have been familiarized with the devices and their function. In Experiment 1, infants observed hiding and retrieving actions performed by a pair of mechanical claws on the A-trials, and then searched for the hidden toy on the B-trial. In Experiment 2, infants were first familiarized with the experimenter and the claws but not their function. In Experiment 3, infants were familiarized with the function of the claws. The results revealed that search errors were at chance levels in Experiments 1 and 2, but a significant proportion of the infants showed the A-not-B error in Experiment 3. These results suggest that 9-month-old infants are less likely to simulate observed actions performed by mechanical devices than by human agents, unless they are familiarized with the function of the devices so that their actions are perceived as goal-directed.