EXPRESS: Don’t blame yourself: Conscious source monitoring modulates feedback control during speech production

Sensory feedback plays an important role in speech motor control. One of the main sources of evidence for this are studies where online auditory feedback is perturbed during ongoing speech. In motor control, it is therefore crucial to distinguish between sensory feedback and externally generated sensory events. This is called source monitoring. Previous altered feedback studies have taken non-conscious source monitoring for granted, as automatic responses to altered sensory feedback imply that the feedback changes are processed as self-caused. However, the role of conscious source monitoring is unclear. The current study investigated whether conscious source monitoring modulates responses to unexpected pitch changes in auditory feedback. During a first block, some participants spontaneously attributed the pitch shifts to themselves (self-blamers) while others attributed them to an external source (other-blamers). Before block 2, all participants were informed that the pitch shifts were experimentally induced. The self-blamers then showed a reduction in response magnitude in block 2 compared with block 1, while the other-blamers did not. This suggests that conscious source monitoring modulates responses to altered auditory feedback, such that consciously ascribing feedback to oneself leads to larger compensation responses. These results can be accounted for within the dominant comparator framework, where conscious source monitoring could modulate the gain on sensory feedback. Alternatively, the results can be naturally explained from an inferential framework, where conscious knowledge may bias the priors in a Bayesian process to determine the most likely source of a sensory event.

A Stochastic Model of the Repressive-Preventive Impact on Crime: from Intuition to Calculations

The authors analyze the use of new digital technologies for automated collection, analysis and assessment of large volumes of data on crime, its key factors and the effects of crime countraction efforts with the goal of a gradual transition from the intuitive method of crime counteraction to the calculations-based one. The hypothesis of the study is that a continuous multi-source monitoring of quantitative crime indices, factors and the effects of crime counteraction efforts will make it possible not only to optimize budgetary expenditure on fighting crime, but also to find effective solutions for other practical problems of crime counteraction efforts (specifically, problems of evaluating and compensating the inflicted damage, problems of reducing the number of ungrounded changes in criminal, criminal procedure and penitentiary legislation). A specific modern feature of the state policy of combating crime is that digital technologies make it possible to develop and implement a stochastic model of repressive-preventive impact on crime with the use of criminal law, criminal procedure and penitentiary measures. It is suggested that the use of the stochastic model of repressive-preventive impact on crime should be viewed as a necessary condition for the development and adoption of national and regional programs of crime counteraction financed by the federal and regional budgets. The authors believe that the introduction of the stochastic model of the repressive-preventive impact in the practice of crime counteraction should be conducted in several stages. At the first stage, the federal law and the Act of the RF Government shoud determine the conditions of a mid-term experiment on the territories of some subjects of the Russian Federation, which will ensure a continuous monitoring, including the collection, processing and analysis of statistical data, results of population and experts’ surveys on the condition and dynamics of grave and especially grave crime, its factors and the effects of state efforts to counteract such crimes. At the final stage of the introduction of a stochastic model of the repressive-preventive impact on crime in the practice of state governance, the authors suggest creating an automated federal system of multi-source monitoring of indexed crimes (these are the crimes most «sensitive» for achieving the goals of national security and ensuring public order, which require non-stop monitoring), their key factors and the results of counteracting them. Key expected results from the introduction of this stochastic model and a continuous mlti-source monitoring into the practice of crime counteraction should be the optimization of budgetary expenses on criminal prosecution, the reduction of the number of inmates, the reduction of the number of changes introduced into the Criminal, Criminal Procedure and Penitentiary Codes of the Russian Federation.

Phase-matching quantum key distribution with light source monitoring

The transmission loss of photons during quantum key distribution(QKD) process leads to the linear key rate bound for practical QKD systems without quantum repeaters. Phase matching quantum key distribution (PM-QKD) protocol, an novel QKD protocol, can overcome the constraint with a measurement-device-independent structure, while it still requires the light source to be ideal. This assumption is not guaranteed in practice, leading to practical secure issues. In this paper, we propose a modified PM-QKD protocol with a light source monitoring, named PM-QKD-LSM protocol, which can guarantee the security of the system under the non-ideal source condition. The results show that our proposed protocol performs almost the same as the ideal PM-QKD protocol even considering the imperfect factors in practical systems. PM-QKD-LSM protocol has a better performance with source fluctuation, and it is robust in symmetric or asymmetric cases.

The Consistency of Repeated Witness Testimony Leads Triers-of-Fact to Over-Rely on the Power of a Single Voice

<p>Are claims more credible when made by multiple people, or is it the repetition of claims that matters? Some research suggests that claims have more credibility when independent sources make them. Yet, other research suggests that simply repeating information makes it more accessible and encourages reliance on automatic processes—factors known to change people’s judgments. In Experiment 1, subjects took part in a “misinformation” study: Subjects first watched a video of a crime and later read witness reports attributed to one or three different witnesses who made misleading claims in either one report or repeated the same misleading claims across all three reports. In Experiment 2, subjects who had not seen any videos read those same reports and indicated how confident they were that each claim happened in the original event. Subjects were more misled by—and more confident about—claims that were repeated, regardless of how many witnesses made them. These findings led us to hypothesize that the repeated claims of a single witness are seen as consistent, while the claims of multiple witnesses are seen as having consensus. We tested this hypothesis in Experiments 3 and 4 by asking subjects who had not seen the video to read the reports that repeated the claims. In Experiment 3, half of the subjects read reports that contained some peripheral inconsistencies. In Experiment 4 all subjects read reports that contained inconsistencies, but half of the subjects were warned about the accuracy of the inconsistent reports. Later, everyone indicated how confident they were that each claim really happened. Warning subjects about the inconsistent reports (Experiment 4) led them to rate the repeated claims of a single witness—but not multiple witnesses—as less credible; A finding consistent with our hypothesis. In Experiment 5, we tested an alternative explanation that a failure to attend to the source of the information may explain our findings by asking half of the subjects to complete a source monitoring component with their confidence test. We failed to find evidence for this explanation. We conclude that subjects interpreted both the consistency of a single witness's repeated claims, and the consensus among multiple witnesses' converging claims, as markers of accuracy. Importantly, warning subjects about the accuracy of the inconsistent reports reduced subjects’ confidence in the claims made by a single witness, but not multiple witnesses. These findings fit with research showing that repeating information makes it seem more true, and highlight the power of a single repeated voice.</p>

The Consistency of Repeated Witness Testimony Leads Triers-of-Fact to Over-Rely on the Power of a Single Voice

<p>Are claims more credible when made by multiple people, or is it the repetition of claims that matters? Some research suggests that claims have more credibility when independent sources make them. Yet, other research suggests that simply repeating information makes it more accessible and encourages reliance on automatic processes—factors known to change people’s judgments. In Experiment 1, subjects took part in a “misinformation” study: Subjects first watched a video of a crime and later read witness reports attributed to one or three different witnesses who made misleading claims in either one report or repeated the same misleading claims across all three reports. In Experiment 2, subjects who had not seen any videos read those same reports and indicated how confident they were that each claim happened in the original event. Subjects were more misled by—and more confident about—claims that were repeated, regardless of how many witnesses made them. These findings led us to hypothesize that the repeated claims of a single witness are seen as consistent, while the claims of multiple witnesses are seen as having consensus. We tested this hypothesis in Experiments 3 and 4 by asking subjects who had not seen the video to read the reports that repeated the claims. In Experiment 3, half of the subjects read reports that contained some peripheral inconsistencies. In Experiment 4 all subjects read reports that contained inconsistencies, but half of the subjects were warned about the accuracy of the inconsistent reports. Later, everyone indicated how confident they were that each claim really happened. Warning subjects about the inconsistent reports (Experiment 4) led them to rate the repeated claims of a single witness—but not multiple witnesses—as less credible; A finding consistent with our hypothesis. In Experiment 5, we tested an alternative explanation that a failure to attend to the source of the information may explain our findings by asking half of the subjects to complete a source monitoring component with their confidence test. We failed to find evidence for this explanation. We conclude that subjects interpreted both the consistency of a single witness's repeated claims, and the consensus among multiple witnesses' converging claims, as markers of accuracy. Importantly, warning subjects about the accuracy of the inconsistent reports reduced subjects’ confidence in the claims made by a single witness, but not multiple witnesses. These findings fit with research showing that repeating information makes it seem more true, and highlight the power of a single repeated voice.</p>

Assessing the value of complex refractive index and particle density for calibration of low-cost particle matter sensor for size-resolved particle count and PM2.5 measurements

Low-cost optical scattering particulate matter (PM) sensors report total or size-specific particle counts and mass concentrations. The PM concentration and size are estimated by the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) proprietary algorithms, which have inherent limitations since particle scattering depends on particles’ properties such as size, shape, and complex index of refraction (CRI) as well as environmental parameters such as temperature and relative humidity (RH). As low-cost PM sensors are not able to resolve individual particles, there is a need to characterize and calibrate sensors’ performance under a controlled environment. Here, we present improved calibration algorithms for Plantower PMS A003 sensor for mass indices and size-resolved number concentration. An aerosol chamber experimental protocol was used to evaluate sensor-to-sensor data reproducibility. The calibration was performed using four polydisperse test aerosols. The particle size distribution OEM calibration for PMS A003 sensor did not agree with the reference single particle sizer measurements. For the number concentration calibration, the linear model without adjusting for the aerosol properties and environmental conditions yields an absolute error (NMAE) of ~ 4.0% compared to the reference instrument. The calibration models adjusted for particle CRI and density account for non-linearity in the OEM’s mass concentrations estimates with NMAE within 5.0%. The calibration algorithms developed in this study can be used in indoor air quality monitoring, occupational/industrial exposure assessments, or near-source monitoring scenarios where field calibration might be challenging.

Placebos Affect Retrospective and Prospective Memory Performance by Increasing Monitoring

<p>Decreasing physical pain, increasing emotional wellbeing, and improving physical health are just some of the ways placebos have affected people's physiological and psychological health (Crum & Langer, 2007; Kirsch & Sapirstein, 1999; Montgomery & Kirsch, 1997). Recently, Clifasefi, Garry, Harper, Sharman, and Sutherland (2007) demonstrated that a memory placebo called R273 could even reduce people's susceptibility to misleading information. Yet how could a substance with no physiologically active properties affect memory performance? That is the overarching question of this thesis. In order to monitor the sources of information about the past, and in order to remember future tasks and actions, people can either use an effortful monitoring process, or they can rely on their usual, automatic and effortless memory processes. Typically, the more monitoring that people use, the better their memory performance (Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993; Einstein et al., 2005). In this thesis, over three experiments, I examined how a placebo might affect the way people monitor information, thus improving aspects of retrospective and prospective memory. Experiment 1 examined whether R273 reduces people's susceptibility to the misinformation effect by leading them to switch from their habitual, automatic, and easy source monitoring to more deliberate and effortful source monitoring. To examine this question I used Clifasefi et al.'s (2007) sham drug procedure and then ran subjects through a three-stage misinformation experiment (Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978). The results of Experiments 1 suggest that R273 did not affect effortful monitoring during the post event information (PEI), but did affect effortful monitoring during the memory test. Experiment 2 aimed to find further evidence that R273 affects people's monitoring during the memory test. To address this question, all subjects were told that they had received an inactive drug before they took part in the first two stages of the misinformation effect paradigm. Immediately before taking the memory test, however, I falsely told some people that they had actually received R273. The primary finding of Experiment 2 added support to the idea that R273 affects subjects source monitoring during the memory test: Told Drug subjects were less misled than their Told Inactive counterparts. Finally, Experiment 3 further examined whether R273 leads people to use effortful monitoring, but did so using a prospective memory task, whose underlying memory processes align closely with those of source monitoring. The results showed that Told Drug subjects were slower to perform an ongoing and concurrent task, yet had better prospective memory performance than Told Inactive subjects. These results suggested that R273 lead Told Drug subjects' to use more effortful monitoring. In conclusion, the results suggest that the sham cognitive enhancing placebo R273 improves people's ability to resist misleading suggestion, and perform prospective memory tasks because it leads them to use more effortful monitoring.</p>

Placebos Affect Retrospective and Prospective Memory Performance by Increasing Monitoring

<p>Decreasing physical pain, increasing emotional wellbeing, and improving physical health are just some of the ways placebos have affected people's physiological and psychological health (Crum & Langer, 2007; Kirsch & Sapirstein, 1999; Montgomery & Kirsch, 1997). Recently, Clifasefi, Garry, Harper, Sharman, and Sutherland (2007) demonstrated that a memory placebo called R273 could even reduce people's susceptibility to misleading information. Yet how could a substance with no physiologically active properties affect memory performance? That is the overarching question of this thesis. In order to monitor the sources of information about the past, and in order to remember future tasks and actions, people can either use an effortful monitoring process, or they can rely on their usual, automatic and effortless memory processes. Typically, the more monitoring that people use, the better their memory performance (Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993; Einstein et al., 2005). In this thesis, over three experiments, I examined how a placebo might affect the way people monitor information, thus improving aspects of retrospective and prospective memory. Experiment 1 examined whether R273 reduces people's susceptibility to the misinformation effect by leading them to switch from their habitual, automatic, and easy source monitoring to more deliberate and effortful source monitoring. To examine this question I used Clifasefi et al.'s (2007) sham drug procedure and then ran subjects through a three-stage misinformation experiment (Loftus, Miller, & Burns, 1978). The results of Experiments 1 suggest that R273 did not affect effortful monitoring during the post event information (PEI), but did affect effortful monitoring during the memory test. Experiment 2 aimed to find further evidence that R273 affects people's monitoring during the memory test. To address this question, all subjects were told that they had received an inactive drug before they took part in the first two stages of the misinformation effect paradigm. Immediately before taking the memory test, however, I falsely told some people that they had actually received R273. The primary finding of Experiment 2 added support to the idea that R273 affects subjects source monitoring during the memory test: Told Drug subjects were less misled than their Told Inactive counterparts. Finally, Experiment 3 further examined whether R273 leads people to use effortful monitoring, but did so using a prospective memory task, whose underlying memory processes align closely with those of source monitoring. The results showed that Told Drug subjects were slower to perform an ongoing and concurrent task, yet had better prospective memory performance than Told Inactive subjects. These results suggested that R273 lead Told Drug subjects' to use more effortful monitoring. In conclusion, the results suggest that the sham cognitive enhancing placebo R273 improves people's ability to resist misleading suggestion, and perform prospective memory tasks because it leads them to use more effortful monitoring.</p>

Social Aspects of Discussions Affect Capitulation and Susceptibility to False Memories

<p>People talk. People talk to entertain each other, to divulge news, and to gain support. Additionally, people talk about shared experiences to figure out what "really" happened. But does talking about the past change what we remember? That is the overarching question of the research presented in this thesis. People remember the same events in different ways; consequently, when people discuss the past, they might come across new information. To examine how discussion affects people's memories, we must know what happened during a target event and must create conflicts in the discussion to see how those conflicts affect people's memories. To overcome these challenges, I used the MORI technique to present different viewers with different movies on the same screen at the same time (Mori, 2003; 2007). The MORI technique allows people to feel that they have shared an experience--they sit side-by-side and ostensibly watch the same--yet systematic differences are introduced into their memories, and the effect of those differences can be tracked through discussion. I report a series of experiments that examine the efficacy of the MORI technique and investigate how different social factors contribute to false memories. Each experiment used a variation of the same basic three-stage procedure. First, pairs of people each unwittingly watched slightly different versions of an event. Next, pairs answered questions about the event together; some questions guided them to discuss details for which they had seen contradictory information. Finally, subjects completed a memory test individually to determine what each person really remembered about the event. In short, when people watched a movie via the MORI technique, they could see and remember the details of the movie (Experiments 1A and 1B), and they did not notice or implicitly remember details from the alternate (blocked) movie version--the version their partner saw (Experiments 3A and 3B). Additionally, discussion corrupted people's memories (Experiments 2A, 2B, 4, 5 and 6). 'People were influenced by their partner's suggestions: they falsely remembered details from their partner's version of the event, even though those details contradicted what they personally saw. Consistent with the Source Monitoring Framework, the corrupting influence of the discussion depended on social factors in the interaction (Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993; Lindsay, 2008). For instance, people were more likely to remember false details that their romantic partner suggested than false details that a stranger suggested (Experiment 4). Additionally, leading people to believe that their counterpart's vision was better or worse than their own led them to be more or less influenced by their counterpart's false suggestions (Experiment 6). In sum, when people share an experience and discuss it they can come to remember seeing things that they were only told about after the event. In other words, corroboration does not equal accuracy. I discuss the possible-beneficial-mechanisms underlying these memory errors; draw parallels between my research and research on social influence, group remembering and transactive memory systems; discuss theoretical, methodological and practical implications, and suggest potential applications of my findings and avenues for future research.</p>

Social Aspects of Discussions Affect Capitulation and Susceptibility to False Memories

<p>People talk. People talk to entertain each other, to divulge news, and to gain support. Additionally, people talk about shared experiences to figure out what "really" happened. But does talking about the past change what we remember? That is the overarching question of the research presented in this thesis. People remember the same events in different ways; consequently, when people discuss the past, they might come across new information. To examine how discussion affects people's memories, we must know what happened during a target event and must create conflicts in the discussion to see how those conflicts affect people's memories. To overcome these challenges, I used the MORI technique to present different viewers with different movies on the same screen at the same time (Mori, 2003; 2007). The MORI technique allows people to feel that they have shared an experience--they sit side-by-side and ostensibly watch the same--yet systematic differences are introduced into their memories, and the effect of those differences can be tracked through discussion. I report a series of experiments that examine the efficacy of the MORI technique and investigate how different social factors contribute to false memories. Each experiment used a variation of the same basic three-stage procedure. First, pairs of people each unwittingly watched slightly different versions of an event. Next, pairs answered questions about the event together; some questions guided them to discuss details for which they had seen contradictory information. Finally, subjects completed a memory test individually to determine what each person really remembered about the event. In short, when people watched a movie via the MORI technique, they could see and remember the details of the movie (Experiments 1A and 1B), and they did not notice or implicitly remember details from the alternate (blocked) movie version--the version their partner saw (Experiments 3A and 3B). Additionally, discussion corrupted people's memories (Experiments 2A, 2B, 4, 5 and 6). 'People were influenced by their partner's suggestions: they falsely remembered details from their partner's version of the event, even though those details contradicted what they personally saw. Consistent with the Source Monitoring Framework, the corrupting influence of the discussion depended on social factors in the interaction (Johnson, Hashtroudi, & Lindsay, 1993; Lindsay, 2008). For instance, people were more likely to remember false details that their romantic partner suggested than false details that a stranger suggested (Experiment 4). Additionally, leading people to believe that their counterpart's vision was better or worse than their own led them to be more or less influenced by their counterpart's false suggestions (Experiment 6). In sum, when people share an experience and discuss it they can come to remember seeing things that they were only told about after the event. In other words, corroboration does not equal accuracy. I discuss the possible-beneficial-mechanisms underlying these memory errors; draw parallels between my research and research on social influence, group remembering and transactive memory systems; discuss theoretical, methodological and practical implications, and suggest potential applications of my findings and avenues for future research.</p>