Design and Research of a Foul Detector for Long Jump Stepping on a Jump Line Based on the Wireless Sensor Network

In view of the problems of the judgment of the referee in international long jump competition, such as the omission and wrong judgment, a real-time, accurate, and effective detection instrument is designed. The sensor carried on the athlete is used as the detection element of the foul, which ensures the accuracy and timely information acquisition and effectively prevents the wrong judgment and the missed judgment. The system data is transmitted by the wireless sensor network, which is highly safe and reliable. The experimental results show that compared with the traditional artificial judgment results, the long jump crossover line foul detector based on the wireless sensor network can realize the accurate detection of the number of fouls. The judgment error is lower than the requirements of track and field rules for detection tools, which has great practical value and economic significance.

Reasoning Method between Polynomial Error Assertions

Error coefficients are ubiquitous in systems. In particular, errors in reasoning verification must be considered regarding safety-critical systems. We present a reasoning method that can be applied to systems described by the polynomial error assertion (PEA). The implication relationship between PEAs can be converted to an inclusion relationship between zero sets of PEAs; the PEAs are then transformed into first-order polynomial logic. Combined with the quantifier elimination method, based on cylindrical algebraic decomposition, the judgment of the inclusion relationship between zero sets of PEAs is transformed into judgment error parameters and specific error coefficient constraints, which can be obtained by the quantifier elimination method. The proposed reasoning method is validated by proving the related theorems. An example of intercepting target objects is provided, and the correctness of our method is tested through large-scale random cases. Compared with reasoning methods without error semantics, our reasoning method has the advantage of being able to deal with error parameters.

Don't Just Judge the Spelling! The Influence of Spelling on Assessing Second-Language Student Essays

When judging subject-specific aspects of students’ texts, teachers should assess various characteristics, e.g., spelling and content, independently of one another since these characteristics are indicators of different skills. Independent judgments enable teachers to adapt their classroom instruction according to students’ skills. It is still unclear how well teachers meet this challenge and which intervention could be helpful to them. In Study 1, N = 51 pre-service teachers assessed four authentic English as a Second Language (ESL) essays with different overall text qualities and different qualities of spelling using holistic and analytic rating scales. Results showed a negative influence of the experimentally manipulated spelling errors on the judgment of almost all textual characteristics. In Study 2, an experimental prompt was used to reduce this judgment error. Participants who were made aware of the judgment error caused by spelling errors formed their judgments in a less biased way, indicating a reduction of bias. The determinants of the observed effects and their practical implications are discussed.

IMPROVEMENT OF FABRIC DETECTION ALGORITHM BASED ON SOBEL OPERATOR

The traditional Sobel operator has incomplete edge detection, and improper selection threshold causes edge judgment error. In this paper, non-maximum suppression combined with adaptive threshold selection is proposed for fabric defect detection. This method uses bilateral filtering for image preprocessing to eliminate the influence of noise and illumination imbalance on the image. Increase by 45 per cent。and 135。gradient calculation in two directions, using non-maximum suppression algorithm to refine the image edge, and reduce the misjudgment of edge points by adaptive threshold selection.

Precise/not precise (PNP): A Brunswikian model that uses judgment error distributions to identify cognitive processes

In 1956, Brunswik proposed a definition of what he called intuitive and analytic cognitive processes, not in terms of verbally specified properties, but operationally based on the observable error distributions. In the decades since, the diagnostic value of error distributions has generally been overlooked, arguably because of a long tradition to consider the error as exogenous (and irrelevant) to the process. Based on Brunswik’s ideas, we develop the precise/not precise (PNP) model, using a mixture distribution to model the proportion of error-perturbed versus error-free executions of an algorithm, to determine if Brunswik’s claims can be replicated and extended. In Experiment 1, we demonstrate that the PNP model recovers Brunswik’s distinction between perceptual and conceptual tasks. In Experiment 2, we show that also in symbolic tasks that involve no perceptual noise, the PNP model identifies both types of processes based on the error distributions. In Experiment 3, we apply the PNP model to confirm the often-assumed “quasi-rational” nature of the rule-based processes involved in multiple-cue judgment. The results demonstrate that the PNP model reliably identifies the two cognitive processes proposed by Brunswik, and often recovers the parameters of the process more effectively than a standard regression model with homogeneous Gaussian error, suggesting that the standard Gaussian assumption incorrectly specifies the error distribution in many tasks. We discuss the untapped potentials of using error distributions to identify cognitive processes and how the PNP model relates to, and can enlighten, debates on intuition and analysis in dual-systems theories.

Causes, frequency and avoidance of diagnostic errors in newborns and children of the first year of life

The article presents research methods to detect the frequency of diagnostic errors.Objective: to compare clinical and pathological diagnoses in order to determine the frequency, causes and ways of avoiding diagnostic errors in children with infectious pathology specific to the perinatal period. The authors studied 234 death cases in the intensive care unit for newborns in 2006–2018, and they found diagnostic errors in 18,3% of cases. 53,4% of the diagnostic errors were associated with unrecognized infectious diseases specific to the perinatal period. The authors found that the correct intravital diagnosis was impossible for objective reasons in 65% of cases. Those objective reasons were mainly caused by diagnostic difficulties due to the lack of characteristic clinical data or the atypical course. Almost in every third patient the diagnostic errors were caused by subjective reasons and were associated with the diagnosis of congenital cytomegalovirus infection and neonatal sepsis. The subjective errors were often caused by the so-called doctor’s bona fide delusion due to a lack of knowledge, skills, experience. As the judgment error was the most common reason for misdiagnosis we need to improve the clinicians’ cognitive condition. Based on the audit results, the authors proposed the additional diagnostic approaches for certain diseases. One way to reduce errors is to improve educational initiatives for doctors.

Does Restricting an Observer’s Arm Movements Degrade Their Judgments of Others’ Reaching Abilities?

Summary Observers can perceive others’ action capabilities. These actions include observers’ abilities to perceive the maximum height that an actor can sit, step across a gap, climb in a bipedal manner, or reach an object (Stoffregen et al., 1999; Mark, 2007; Ramenzoni et al., 2008a, 2008b). While observers’ abilities to perceive others’ action capabilities have been widely studied, researchers debate the information to which observers attend when making such judgments. Some have argued observers attend to actor-environment relations when perceiving others’ action capabilities (e.g., Stoffregen et al., 1999; Mark, 2007; Ramenzoni et al., 2008a). From this perspective, observers attend to relations between relevant characteristics of the actor’s body (e.g., leg length) and their environment (e.g., step height) to perceive actors’ action capabilities (e.g., stair-climbing ability). This perspective has empirical support. For example, observers differentiated short and tall actors’ maximum sitting heights but only when the actors and sitting apparatus were presented in the same scale (Stoffregen et al., 1999). Others have argued observers attend to observer-environment relations when perceiving others’ capabilities (e.g., Knoblich & Sebanz, 2006; Ramenzoni et al., 2008b; Gallese & Sinigaglia, 2011). From this perspective, observers perceive their own action capabilities (Step 1), which serve as a model for the actor’s action capabilities and then adjust that model (Step 2) to account for observer-actor differences (Knoblich & Sebanz, 2006; Gallese & Sinigaglia, 2011). This perspective also has empirical support. For example, observers wearing ankle weights underestimated actors’ maximum jump-to-reach heights (Ramenzoni et al., 2008b). The present study further investigated whether observers attend to observer-environment relations when perceiving others’ maximum reach capabilities. Participants ( n = 34) made judgments about a confederate’s maximum reach capability while participants’ arms were held either freely by their sides (Unrestricted Condition) or placed behind their back (Restricted Condition). Widlus and Jones (2017) demonstrated that such arm restriction led to more erroneous judgments about one’s own reaching capabilities. To make judgments, participants directed the confederate to the farthest point from a hanging object that would still afford the confederate the ability to reach the object. If observers attend to observer-environment relations when judging the confederate’s maximum reach capability, then 1) judgment error would be greater in the Restricted condition than in the Unrestricted condition, 2) judgments would align with observers’ capabilities better than with the confederate’s, and 3) judgment error would positively correlate with the degree of dissimilarity between observers’ and the confederate’s action capabilities. The experiment used a within-subjects design. The independent variable was observer arm exploration, which consisted of two levels: unrestricted and restricted arm exploration. The dependent variable was the participant’s judgment of the farthest distance the confederate could reach. This was operationalized as the distance between the confederate’s clavicle and the to-be-reached object, once participants had directed the confederate to the position where they believed the confederate could just reach the object. Those judgments served as the basis for several measures. The present study’s results suggested arm restriction did not increase judgment error. Second, judgments did not align with observers’ capabilities better than with the confederate’s. Third, judgment error did not positively correlate with the degree of dissimilarity between observers’ and the confederate’s action capabilities. Collectively, these outcomes provide consistent evidence that observers did not base their judgments of the confederate’s reaching capabilities on observer-environment relations. Instead, these results are consistent with previous studies that support the possibility that observers based their judgments on actor-environment relations (Stoffregen et al., 1999; Ramenzoni et al., 2008a). Understanding how observers judge others’ action capabilities allows us to better predict errors that may occur in operational settings, e.g., whether a firefighter will inaccurately judge whether their partner can accomplish a given task. Human factors professionals can then develop solutions to mitigate such errors, e.g., equipment redesign to better reveal actor-environment relations.

Students’ Errors in Solving Science Reasoning-Domain of Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS)

This research aims to identify the errors of students’ answers in solving the TIMSS cognitive domain of reasoning. This research was a qualitative descriptive research. A total 259 students from four secondary schools located in rural and urban areas in Jember, East Java participated in a paper and pencil test. Error identification was examined by reducing the result of wrong students’ answer and grouping based on error type of general errors. The results showed that the average percentage of total errors from the four schools were contradicting error of 7.3%, disregarding evidence error of 5.2%, misreading error of 45.7%, and opinion-based judgment error of 40.9%. In conclusion, there were four types of general errors made by students in answering TIMMS test item of reasoning domain with misreading and disregarding evidence as the highest and lowest error, respectively.