scholarly journals Some Problems With the Analytical Argument in Support of RP67 in the Context of the Bookmark Standard Setting Method

2018 ◽  
Vol 43 (6) ◽  
pp. 481-492 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Baldwin
Keyword(s):  
Correct Response ◽  
Likelihood Function ◽  
Response Probability ◽  
Incorrect Response ◽  
Measurement Model ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
Maximum Information ◽  
Analytical Argument ◽  
Different Response ◽  
Crucial Part

The choice of response probability in the bookmark method has been shown to affect outcomes in important ways. These findings have implications for the validity of the bookmark method because panelists’ inability to internally adjust when given different response probabilities suggests that they are not performing the intended judgment task. In response to the concerns these findings raise, proponents of the bookmark method argue that such concerns can be addressed by using a response probability of .67. A crucial part of their argument includes the often-repeated claim that the .67 value corresponds with the maximum information for a correct response, which is believed to be beneficial in some way. In this article, it is shown that this claim is mistaken; that the formula upon which the .67 result is based is incorrect; that (for the relevant measurement model) there is no difference between the information for a correct response, for an incorrect response, or for the item overall; and, more generally, that the “maximize information” approach is based on the wrong likelihood function altogether.

scholarly journals Modulating Proactive Cognitive Control by Reward: Differential Anticipatory Effects of Performance Contingent and Non-Contingent Rewards

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Motonori Yamaguchi
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Control ◽  
Task Performance ◽  
Correct Response ◽  
Flanker Task ◽  
Incorrect Response ◽  
Response Speed ◽  
Flanker Effect ◽  
Contingent Reward ◽  
Sequential Modulation ◽  
Contingent Rewards

The present study investigated the influences of two different forms of reward presentation in modulating cognitive control. In three experiments, participants performed a flanker task for which one-third of trials were precued for a chance of obtaining a reward (reward trials). In Experiment 1, a reward was provided if participants made the correct response on reward trials but a penalty was given if they made an incorrect response on these trials. The anticipation of this performance-contingent reward increased response speed and reduced the flanker effect but had little influence on the sequential modulation of the flanker effect after incompatible trials. In Experiment 2, participants obtained a reward randomly on two-thirds of the precued reward trials and were given a penalty on the remaining one-third, regardless of their performance. The anticipation of this non-contingent reward had little influence on the overall response speed or flanker effect but reduced the sequential modulation of the flanker effect after incompatible trials. Experiment 3 also used performance non-contingent rewards but participants were randomly penalized more often than they were rewarded; non-contingent penalty had little influence on the sequential modulation of the flanker effect. None of the three experiments showed a reliable influence of the actual acquisition of rewards on task performance. These results indicate anticipatory effects of performance contingent and non-contingent rewards on cognitive control with little evidence of aftereffects.

Reasoning Strategies

2020 ◽  
pp. 101-114
Author(s):  
Stephen K. Reed
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Situation Awareness ◽  
Correct Response ◽  
Applied Research ◽  
Incorrect Response ◽  
Reasoning Strategies ◽  
Reasoning System ◽  
Military Engagement

A dichotomy that has influenced much theoretical and applied research on reasoning is the distinction between System I and System II reasoning. System I is intuitive, fast, based on associations, and subject to biases. System II is analytic, slow, based on rules, and more competent. It should be kept in mind, however, that these distinctions do not always apply. A fast, correct response occurs when an expert automatically responds quickly, and a slow, incorrect response occurs when the answer is unknown. One tactic to improve reasoning is the use of nudges to steer people’s choices in a direction to improve their lives. Another tactic is the use of boosts to educate people to make better decisions. Action-based decision-making, such as firefighting and military engagement, requires making a series of decisions as the situation changes. Situation awareness is critical for making good decisions.

Token Loss in Speech Imitation Training

1971 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 486-495 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leija V. McReynolds ◽  
Kay Huston
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Correct Response ◽  
Incorrect Response ◽  
Speech Imitation ◽  
Delayed Language Development

The use of tokens as positive reinforcers for correct responses and no consequences for incorrect responses was compared with the use of tokens contingent upon correct responses and loss of tokens contingent on incorrect responses. Two magnitudes of token gain to token loss were also compared: (1) three tokens were given for a correct response and one token removed for an incorrect response; (2) one token was given for a correct response and one was removed for an incorrect response. The subjects were a six-year-old child with delayed language development and a seven-year-old with an articulation problem. Training items consisted of the verbal imitation of words. Results indicated that the no-token-loss condition was more effective in decreasing incorrect responses than either magnitude of token loss. Results of the two token-loss procedures indicated, however, that their effectiveness is partly determined by the ratio of tokens gained to tokens lost. It is concluded that token loss could be effective but that related variables should be carefully examined.

Response Latency in Simian Learning Set Performance

1966 ◽  
Vol 19 (2) ◽  
pp. 403-406
Author(s):  
Isaac Behar
Keyword(s):  
Correlation Coefficient ◽  
Correct Response ◽  
Response Latency ◽  
Incorrect Response ◽  
Learning Set

Response latency was examined during learning set performance of eight highly sophisticated monkeys. Latency was relatively very long on Trial 1 of each problem and uniformly short during Trials 2 to 6. There was no difference in latency on Trial 2 following correct (response to A+) and incorrect (response to B−) Trial 1 responses. For the second block of problems, where performance was stable, the correlation coefficient between per cent correct responses and latency on Trials 2 to 6 for the eight Ss was 0.86.

scholarly journals Polarity-item anything in L3 English: Where does transfer come from when the L1 is Catalan and the L2 is Spanish?

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (4) ◽  
pp. 487-515 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eloi Puig-Mayenco ◽  
Heather Marsden
Keyword(s):  
First Language ◽  
Age Of Acquisition ◽  
Judgment Task ◽  
English Speakers ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Polarity Item ◽  
L1 Transfer ◽  
Third Language ◽  
L3 Acquisition ◽  
Different Response

This study explores the source of transfer in third language (L3) English by two distinct groups of Catalan–Spanish bilinguals, simultaneous bilinguals and late bilinguals. Our study addresses two research questions: (1) Does transfer come from the first language (L1), the second language (L2), or both? and (2) Does age of acquisition of the L2 affect how transfer occurs? We compare beginner and advanced English speakers from both L3 groups with beginner and advanced L1-Spanish L2-English speakers, and find that, on an acceptablity judgment task that investigates knowledge of the distribution of polarity item anything, the two L3 groups demonstrate a different response pattern from the L2 group. The results suggest that both L3 groups transfer from Catalan, and not from their L2, Spanish. Additionally, the cross-sectional nature of the study shows that negative transfer from the initial stages of acquisition is overcome to different extents by the L3 vs. the L2 groups. We conclude that the results show strong evidence against the L2 status factor (Bardel and Falk, 2007, 2012) and the cumulative enhancement (Flynn et al., 2004) models of L3 acquisition, while they can be accounted for by the typological primacy model (Rothman, 2010, 2011, 2015), although other models that predict L1 transfer in L3 acquisition are not ruled out. Further, our findings show no effect of age of acquisition of the L2 on L3 development.

scholarly journals Toward a multimodal measurement model for the neurobehavioral trait of affiliative capacity

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabella M. Palumbo ◽  
Emily R. Perkins ◽  
James R. Yancey ◽  
Sarah J. Brislin ◽  
Christopher J. Patrick ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Measurement Model ◽  
Self Report ◽  
Brain Potential ◽  
Assessment Approach ◽  
Interpersonal Connectedness ◽  
Using Data ◽  
Social Style ◽  
Different Response ◽  
Criterion Variables ◽  
Clinical Problems

Abstract A growing body of research supports the value of a multimodal assessment approach, drawing on measures from different response modalities, for clarifying how core biobehavioral processes relate to various clinical problems and dimensions of psychopathology. Using data for 507 healthy adults, the current study was undertaken to integrate self-report and neurophysiological (brain potential) measures as a step toward a multimodal measurement model for the trait of affiliative capacity (AFF) – a biobehavioral construct relevant to adaptive and maladaptive social-interpersonal functioning. Individuals low in AFF exhibit a lack of interpersonal connectedness, deficient empathy, and an exploitative-aggressive social style that may be expressed transdiagnostically in antagonistic externalizing or distress psychopathology. Specific aims were to (1) integrate trait scale and brain potential indicators into a multimodal measure of AFF and (2) evaluate associations of this multimodal measure with criterion variables of different types. Results demonstrated (1) success in creating a multimodal measure of AFF from self-report and neural indicators, (2) effectiveness of this measure in predicting both clinical-diagnostic and neurophysiological criterion variables, and (3) transdiagnostic utility of the multimodal measure at both specific-disorder and broad symptom-dimension levels. Our findings further illustrate the value of psychoneurometric operationalizations of biobehavioral trait dimensions as referents for clarifying transdiagnostic relationships between biological systems variables and empirically defined dimensions of psychopathology.

scholarly journals Modulating Proactive Cognitive Control by Reward: Differential Anticipatory Effects of Performance Contingent and Non-Contingent Rewards

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Motonori Yamaguchi
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Control ◽  
Task Performance ◽  
Correct Response ◽  
Flanker Task ◽  
Incorrect Response ◽  
Response Speed ◽  
Flanker Effect ◽  
Contingent Reward ◽  
Sequential Modulation ◽  
Contingent Rewards

The present study investigated the influences of two different forms of reward presentation in modulating cognitive control. In three experiments, participants performed a flanker task for which one-third of trials were precued for a chance of obtaining a reward (reward trials). In Experiment 1, a reward was provided if participants made the correct response on reward trials but a penalty was given if they made an incorrect response on these trials. The anticipation of this performance-contingent reward increased response speed and reduced the flanker effect but had little influence on the sequential modulation of the flanker effect after incompatible trials. In Experiment 2, participants obtained a reward randomly on two-thirds of the precued reward trials and were given a penalty on the remaining one-third, regardless of their performance. The anticipation of this non-contingent reward had little influence on the overall response speed or flanker effect but reduced the sequential modulation of the flanker effect after incompatible trials. Experiment 3 also used performance non-contingent rewards but participants were randomly penalized more often than they were rewarded; non-contingent penalty had little influence on the sequential modulation of the flanker effect. None of the three experiments showed a reliable influence of the actual acquisition of rewards on task performance. These results indicate anticipatory effects of performance contingent and non-contingent rewards on cognitive control with little evidence of aftereffects.

During Lipreading Training With Sentence Stimuli, Feedback Controls Learning and Generalization to Audiovisual Speech in Noise

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-21
Author(s):  
Lynne E. Bernstein ◽  
Edward T. Auer ◽  
Silvio P. Eberhardt
Keyword(s):  
Speech Recognition ◽  
Word Recognition ◽  
Perceptual Learning ◽  
Correct Response ◽  
Incorrect Response ◽  
Visual Speech ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Feedback Controls ◽  
Open Set ◽  
Percentage Points

Purpose: This study investigated the effects of external feedback on perceptual learning of visual speech during lipreading training with sentence stimuli. The goal was to improve visual-only (VO) speech recognition and increase accuracy of audiovisual (AV) speech recognition in noise. The rationale was that spoken word recognition depends on the accuracy of sublexical (phonemic/phonetic) speech perception; effective feedback during training must support sublexical perceptual learning. Method: Normal-hearing (NH) adults were assigned to one of three types of feedback: Sentence feedback was the entire sentence printed after responding to the stimulus. Word feedback was the correct response words and perceptually near but incorrect response words. Consonant feedback was correct response words and consonants in incorrect but perceptually near response words. Six training sessions were given. Pre- and posttraining testing included an untrained control group. Test stimuli were disyllable nonsense words for forced-choice consonant identification, and isolated words and sentences for open-set identification. Words and sentences were VO, AV, and audio-only (AO) with the audio in speech-shaped noise. Results: Lipreading accuracy increased during training. Pre- and posttraining tests of consonant identification showed no improvement beyond test–retest increases obtained by untrained controls. Isolated word recognition with a talker not seen during training showed that the control group improved more than the sentence group. Tests of untrained sentences showed that the consonant group significantly improved in all of the stimulus conditions (VO, AO, and AV). Its mean words correct scores increased by 9.2 percentage points for VO, 3.4 percentage points for AO, and 9.8 percentage points for AV stimuli. Conclusions: Consonant feedback during training with sentences stimuli significantly increased perceptual learning. The training generalized to untrained VO, AO, and AV sentence stimuli. Lipreading training has potential to significantly improve adults' face-to-face communication in noisy settings in which the talker can be seen.

The Similarity of Bookmark Cut Scores With Different Response Probability Values

2011 ◽  
Vol 71 (6) ◽  
pp. 963-985 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam E. Wyse
Keyword(s):  
Large Scale ◽  
Item Difficulty ◽  
Response Probability ◽  
Standard Setting ◽  
State Testing ◽  
Cut Scores ◽  
Testing Program ◽  
Cut Score ◽  
Analytical Formulas ◽  
Different Response

Standard setting is a method used to set cut scores on large-scale assessments. One of the most popular standard setting methods is the Bookmark method. In the Bookmark method, panelists are asked to envision a response probability (RP) criterion and move through a booklet of ordered items based on a RP criterion. This study investigates whether or not it is possible to end up with the same cut scores if one were to apply the Bookmark method with two different RP values. Analytical formulas and two hypothetical examples from a large-scale state testing program indicate that it is rarely possible to obtain the same cut score estimates with two different RP values because of the presence of item difficulty gaps present when applying the procedure in practice. Results indicate that if the same group of panelists applied the Bookmark procedure as it is traditionally explained, then cut scores should be lower with the second chosen RP value than they were with the first RP value. This result holds whether or not the second RP value is higher or lower than the first RP value. The examples also reveal that differences in cut score estimates with different RP values can lead to changes in the percentage of examinees at or above the cut scores that may have important practical impacts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document