Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (34) (remove)
Year of publication
- 2014 (34) (remove)
Document Type
- Preprint (34) (remove)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (34)
Keywords
- 2AFC (1)
- Brownian motion (1)
- Climate change (1)
- Climate variability (1)
- ROC curve (1)
- SNARC effect (1)
- Statistics (1)
- aggression (1)
- applied classical electromagnetism (1)
- attention (1)
Institute
- Institut für Geowissenschaften (8)
- Department Psychologie (6)
- Institut für Physik und Astronomie (5)
- Institut für Chemie (4)
- Institut für Biochemie und Biologie (3)
- Sozialwissenschaften (2)
- Department Linguistik (1)
- Department Sport- und Gesundheitswissenschaften (1)
- Historisches Institut (1)
- Institut für Informatik und Computational Science (1)
We argue that the theories of Volokitin and Persson (2014 New J. Phys. 16 118001), Dedkov and Kyasov (2008 J. Phys.: Condens. Matter 20 354006), and Pieplow and Henkel (2013 New J. Phys. 15 023027) agree on the electromagnetic force on a small, polarizable particle that is moving parallel to a planar, macroscopic body, as far as the contribution of evanescent waves is concerned. The apparent differences are discussed in detail and explained by choices of units and integral transformations. We point out in particular the role of the Lorentz contraction in the procedure used by Volokitin and Persson, where a macroscopic body is 'diluted' to obtain the force on a small particle. Differences that appear in the contribution of propagating photons are briefly mentioned.
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.