Refine
Document Type
- Preprint (20) (remove)
Keywords
- mental number line (4)
- numerical cognition (3)
- attention (2)
- spatial cognition (2)
- 2AFC (1)
- Alan Kennedy (1)
- Decoupling (1)
- Eye movements (1)
- Eyemind assumption (1)
- Modality (1)
Institute
- Department Psychologie (20) (remove)
Embodied number processing
(2015)
Many perceptual and cognitive tasks permit or require the integrated cooperation of specialized sensory channels, detectors, or other functionally separate units. In compound detection or discrimination tasks, 1 prominent general mechanism to model the combination of the output of different processing channels is probability summation. The classical example is the binocular summation model of Pirenne (1943), according to which a weak visual stimulus is detected if at least 1 of the 2 eyes detects this stimulus; as we review briefly, exactly the same reasoning is applied in numerous other fields. It is generally accepted that this mechanism necessarily predicts performance based on 2 (or more) channels to be superior to single channel performance, because 2 separate channels provide "2 chances" to succeed with the task. We argue that this reasoning is misleading because it neglects the increased opportunity with 2 channels not just for hits but also for false alarms and that there may well be no redundancy gain at all when performance is measured in terms of receiver operating characteristic curves. We illustrate and support these arguments with a visual detection experiment involving different spatial uncertainty conditions. Our arguments and findings have important implications for all models that, in one way or another, rest on, or incorporate, the notion of probability summation for the analysis of detection tasks, 2-alternative forced-choice tasks, and psychometric functions.
Removing spatial responses reveals spatial concepts even in a culture with mixed reading habits
(2014)
This commentary argues that, rather than providing an "exhaustive review," Elson and Ferguson (2013) discuss a selective sample of empirical studies on violent video game use which corroborate their claim that there is no systematic evidence for a link between violent video game play and aggression. In evaluating the evidence, the authors portray a biased picture of the current state of knowledge about media violence effects. They fail to distinguish between aggression and violence and between everyday and clinical forms of aggression. Furthermore, they misrepresent key constructs, such as mediation, moderation, and external validity, to discredit methodologies used to assess aggression and media violence use. The paper moves the debate backward rather than forward, falling behind existing meta-analytic studies that consider a much wider and more balanced range of studies.
The main goal of our target article was to provide concrete recommendations for improving the replicability of research findings. Most of the comments focus on this point. In addition, a few comments were concerned with the distinction between replicability and generalizability and the role of theory in replication. We address all comments within the conceptual structure of the target article and hope to convince readers that replication in psychological science amounts to much more than hitting the lottery twice.