Temporal error monitoring with directional error magnitude judgements: a robust phenomenon with no effect of being watched

Author(s):  
Tutku Öztel ◽  
Terry Eskenazi ◽  
Fuat Balcı
Author(s):  
Giuditta Battistoni ◽  
Diana Cassi ◽  
Marisabel Magnifico ◽  
Giuseppe Pedrazzi ◽  
Marco Di Blasio ◽  
...  

This study investigates the reliability and precision of anthropometric measurements collected from 3D images and acquired under different conditions of head rotation. Various sources of error were examined, and the equivalence between craniofacial data generated from alternative head positions was assessed. 3D captures of a mannequin head were obtained with a stereophotogrammetric system (Face Shape 3D MaxiLine). Image acquisition was performed with no rotations and with various pitch, roll, and yaw angulations. On 3D images, 14 linear distances were measured. Various indices were used to quantify error magnitude, among them the acquisition error, the mean and the maximum intra- and inter-operator measurement error, repeatability and reproducibility error, the standard deviation, and the standard error of errors. Two one-sided tests (TOST) were performed to assess the equivalence between measurements recorded in different head angulations. The maximum intra-operator error was very low (0.336 mm), closely followed by the acquisition error (0.496 mm). The maximum inter-operator error was 0.532 mm, and the highest degree of error was found in reproducibility (0.890 mm). Anthropometric measurements from alternative acquisition conditions resulted in significantly equivalent TOST, with the exception of Zygion (l)–Tragion (l) and Cheek (l)–Tragion (l) distances measured with pitch angulation compared to no rotation position. Face Shape 3D Maxiline has sufficient accuracy for orthodontic and surgical use. Precision was not altered by head orientation, making the acquisition simpler and not constrained to a critical precision as in 2D photographs.


2021 ◽  
pp. 101490
Author(s):  
Johanna M. Boardman ◽  
Kate Porcheret ◽  
Jacob W. Clark ◽  
Thomas Andrillon ◽  
Anna W.T. Cai ◽  
...  

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (12) ◽  
pp. 1455-1460 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lisa Legault ◽  
Timour Al-Khindi ◽  
Michael Inzlicht

Self-affirmation produces large effects: Even a simple reminder of one’s core values reduces defensiveness against threatening information. But how, exactly, does self-affirmation work? We explored this question by examining the impact of self-affirmation on neurophysiological responses to threatening events. We hypothesized that because self-affirmation increases openness to threat and enhances approachability of unfavorable feedback, it should augment attention and emotional receptivity to performance errors. We further hypothesized that this augmentation could be assessed directly, at the level of the brain. We measured self-affirmed and nonaffirmed participants’ electrophysiological responses to making errors on a task. As we anticipated, self-affirmation elicited greater error responsiveness than did nonaffirmation, as indexed by the error-related negativity, a neural signal of error monitoring. Self-affirmed participants also performed better on the task than did nonaffirmed participants. We offer novel brain evidence that self-affirmation increases openness to threat and discuss the role of error detection in the link between self-affirmation and performance.


2018 ◽  
Vol 132 ◽  
pp. 145-154 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ryan L. Olson ◽  
Christopher J. Brush ◽  
Peter J. Ehmann ◽  
Jennifer F. Buckman ◽  
Brandon L. Alderman
Keyword(s):  

1984 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
pp. 55-57 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard H. Williams ◽  
Donald W. Zimmerman ◽  
Janet M. Rich ◽  
James Larry Steed

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document