On measuring phonetic precursor robustness: a response to Moreton

Much debate in recent years has focused on the relative contribution of analytic and channel biases in shaping the typology of sound. Moreton (2008) argues forcefully for the strength of analytic bias, such as Universal Grammar and other non-modality-specific cognitive biases that facilitate the learning of some phonological patterns and inhibit that of others, in creating typological asymmetries on its own, unassisted by the robustness of phonetic precursors. This article focuses on the assessment of phonetic precursor robustness. The main goal of this article is two-fold: (i) to establish the inadequacy of Moreton's method of evaluating relative phonetic precursor robustness and to offer an alternative to his approach; (ii) to report the results of a cross-linguistic study comparing the nature of vowel-to-vowel coarticulation and the interaction between obstruent voicing and vowel height with the same languages – no previous studies have directly compared these two phonetic precursors.

Download Full-text

Multidimensional Anxiety and Content-specificity Effects in Preferential Processing of Threat

European Psychologist ◽

10.1027//1016-9040.8.4.252 ◽

2003 ◽

Vol 8 (4) ◽

pp. 252-265 ◽

Cited By ~ 9

Author(s):

Manuel G. Calvo ◽

P. Avero ◽

M. Dolores Castillo ◽

Juan J. Miguel-Tobal

Keyword(s):

Selective Attention ◽

Cognitive Biases ◽

Naming Task ◽

Color Naming ◽

Memory Bias ◽

Ego Threat ◽

Phobic Anxiety ◽

Relative Contribution ◽

Content Specificity ◽

Specificity Effects

We examined the relative contribution of specific components of multidimensional anxiety to cognitive biases in the processing of threat-related information in three experiments. Attentional bias was assessed by the emotional Stroop word color-naming task, interpretative bias by an on-line inference processing task, and explicit memory bias by sensitivity (d') and response criterion (β) from word-recognition scores. Multiple regression analyses revealed, first, that phobic anxiety and evaluative anxiety predicted selective attention to physical- and ego-threat information, respectively; cognitive anxiety predicted selective attention to both types of threat. Second, phobic anxiety predicted inhibition of inferences related to physically threatening outcomes of ambiguous situations. And, third, evaluative anxiety predicted a response bias, rather than a genuine memory bias, in the reporting of presented and nonpresented ego-threat information. Other anxiety components, such as motor and physiological anxiety, or interpersonal and daily-routines anxiety made no specific contribution to any cognitive bias. Multidimensional anxiety measures are useful for detecting content-specificity effects in cognitive biases.

Download Full-text

Taxonomy and Epidemiology of Error in Radiology

Error and Uncertainty in Diagnostic Radiology ◽

10.1093/med/9780190665395.003.0002 ◽

2019 ◽

pp. 29-74

Author(s):

Michael A. Bruno

Keyword(s):

Working Memory ◽

Cognitive Biases ◽

Confirmation Bias ◽

Diagnostic Error ◽

Attentional Focus ◽

Relative Contribution ◽

Anchoring Bias ◽

Classification Of Error

This chapter provides an overview of the prevalence and classification of error types in radiology, including the frequency and types of errors made by radiologists. We will review the relative contribution of perceptual error—in which findings are simply not seen—as compared to other common types of error. This error epidemiology will be considered in the light of the underlying variability and uncertainties present in the radiological process. The role of key cognitive biases will also be reviewed, including anchoring bias, confirmation bias, and availability bias. The role of attentional focus, working memory, and problems caused by fatigue and interruption will also be explored. Finally, the problem of radiologist error will be considered in the context of the overall problem of diagnostic error in medicine.

Download Full-text

Relative contribution of jaw and tongue to the vowel height dimension in American English.

The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America ◽

10.1121/1.4784322 ◽

2009 ◽

Vol 125 (4) ◽

pp. 2698-2698 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

D. H. Whalen ◽

Aude Noiray ◽

Khalil Iskarous ◽

Leandro Bolanos

Keyword(s):

American English ◽

Relative Contribution ◽

Vowel Height

Download Full-text

Mortality and morbidity rounds (MMR) in pathology: relative contribution of cognitive bias vs. systems failures to diagnostic error

Diagnosis ◽

10.1515/dx-2018-0089 ◽

2019 ◽

Vol 6 (3) ◽

pp. 249-257 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Quentin Eichbaum ◽

Brian Adkins ◽

Laura Craig-Owens ◽

Donna Ferguson ◽

Daniel Long ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Cognitive Bias ◽

Medical Error ◽

Cognitive Biases ◽

Significant Proportion ◽

Study Participant ◽

Diagnostic Error ◽

Cognitive Errors ◽

Rater Agreement ◽

Mortality And Morbidity ◽

Relative Contribution

Abstract Background Heuristics and cognitive biases are thought to play an important role in diagnostic medical error. How to systematically determine and capture these kinds of errors remains unclear. Morbidity and mortality rounds (MMRs) are generally focused on reducing medical error by identifying and correcting systems failures. However, they may also provide an educational platform for recognizing and raising awareness on cognitive errors. Methods A total of 49 MMR cases spanning the period 2008–2015 in our pathology department were examined for the presence of cognitive errors and/or systems failures by eight study participant raters who were trained on a subset of 16 of these MMR cases (excluded from the main study analysis) to identify such errors. The Delphi method was used to obtain group consensus on error classification on the remaining 33 study cases. Cases with <75% inter-rater agreement were subjected to subsequent rounds of Delphi analysis. Inter-rater agreement at each round was determined by Fleiss’ kappa values. Results Thirty-six percent of the cases presented at our pathology MMRs over an 8-year period were found to contain errors likely due to cognitive bias. Conclusions These data suggest that the errors identified in our pathology MMRs represent not only systems failures but may also be composed of a significant proportion of cognitive errors. Teaching trainees and health professionals to correctly identify different types of cognitive errors may present an opportunity for quality improvement interventions in the interests of patient safety.

Download Full-text