Is I Guaranteed to Refer?

Abstract: One claim about I , regularly made and almost universally endorsed, is that uses of the term are logically guaranteed to refer successfully (if they refer at all). The claim is only rarely formulated perspicuously or argued for. Such obscurity helps disguise the fact that those who profess to advance the claim actually turn out to support not a logical guarantee at all but merely high security through fortunate coincidence. This is not surprising. For we have no good reason to accept the claim – granted, any use of I is apt to refer successfully; but that can be explained by pragmatic features of its use. And we have some reason to reject the claim – it is notoriously difficult to see how genuine reference and guaranteed success do not exclude each other when considered as properties of the logic of any term.     

Word recognition in developmental dyslexia: A connectionist interpretation

We present a study of the accuracy, consistency, and speed of word naming in a dyslexic boy, JM, who has severe impairments in the ability to use sub-lexical, phonological reading strategies. For words that he can recognise, JM's naming latencies do not differ from those of control subjects matched for reading age, and he is generally consistent from one occasion to the next. He can also match printed homophones with their definitions--a skill that requires access to well-specified orthographic representations. The data are interpreted as evidence for the creation of efficient recognition devices for words within JM's sight vocabulary. However, he shows a continuing inability to use phonological decoding strategies to deal with words that he cannot recognize by sight. Overall we argue our results pose problems for stage models of reading development, and that they may best be interpreted within a connectionist framework of the development of word recognition skills.     

Training Observers to Detect Deception Effects of Self-Monitoring and Rehearsal

It was predicted that trained observers would detect deception more accurately than untrained observers. More specifically, it was predicted that the highest deception detection accuracy would be found among trained observers judging the veracity of low self-monitors and unrehearsed liars, whereas the lowest detection accuracy would be found among untrained observers judging the veracity of high self-monitors and rehearsed deceivers. It also was hypothesized that the discrepancy between observers‘actual ability to detect deception and their certainty in the accuracy of their judgments would be smaller for trained observers than for untrained observers. Observers trained to detect deception used six behavioral cues based on research by deTurck and Miller (1985): (a) message duration, (b) response latency, (c) adaptors, (d) pauses, (e) nonfluencies, and (f) hand gestures. Results confirmed both hypotheses.     

Physiological foundations of behaviour

Ohne Zusammenfassung

---

Physiological foundations of behaviour