Gene/Protein Disease Symptom Drug Enzyme Compound
Pivot Concepts:   Target Concepts:
Query: UMLS:C0012739 (disseminated intravascular coagulation)
 8,673 document(s) hit in 31,850,051 MEDLINE articles (0.00 seconds)

Reports an error in "Informed guessing in change detection" by Stephen Rhodes, Nelson Cowan, Kyle O. Hardman and Robert H. Logie (Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 2018[Jul], Vol 44[7], 1023-1035). In the article, the formula for informed guessing in the single probe task is given incorrectly on pages 1025 and 1034. The corrected formula on page 1025 is presented in the erratum. In the more detailed description of the models in the Appendix, on page 1034 the fourth equation under the subheading 'Single Central Probe' was not correct. The corrected equation is presented. In the presentation of Table 1 the DIC and WAIC values were transposed between the uninformed and informed models due to a coding error. This gives the impression that the uninformed model outperformed the informed model in all experiments when the opposite was the case. The corrected table is presented here. The differences in penalized fit statistics given in the main text are unaffected. The online version of this article has been corrected. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2017-56973-001.) Provided stimuli are highly distinct, the detection of changes between two briefly separated arrays appears to be achieved by an all-or-none process where either the relevant information is in working memory or observers guess. This observation suggests that it is possible to estimate the average number of items an observer was able to retain across a series of trials, a potentially highly informative cognitive characteristic. For each version of the change detection paradigm, for this estimate to be accurate, it is important to specify how observers use the information available to them. For some instantiations of this task it is possible that observers use knowledge of the contents of working memory even when they are in a guessing state, rather than selecting between the response alternatives at random. Here we test the suggestion that observers may be able to use their knowledge of the number of items in memory to guide guessing in two versions of the change detection task. The four experiments reported here suggest that participants are, in fact, able to use the parameters of the task to update their base expectation of a change occurring to arrive at more informed guessing. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).
 ...
PMID:"Informed guessing in change detection": Correction to Rhodes et al. (2018). 2926 29