Cognitive Science - Science topic

When Charles Darwin tried to explain how natural selection could act in a way that we might call progressive, he realized that his theory needed something more than simple adaptation. He said that progressive evolution came from the interactions between life forms, such as when cheetahs becoming faster made them more likely to catch impalas.

He contrasted this with adaptation that can happen when an organism responds to abiotic changes in the environment, such as a change in temperature or rainfall, etc.

If we break cases down into these two categories, we can say that cases of adaptation are fairly predictable, while progressive evolutionary cases are not at all predictable.

A good example of adaptation is the case of the Peppered Moth, which was first noticed to change from its normally white color to an almost black color at the same time when coal burning became a popular source of heat, in the 1800s. Later, when other sources of heat replaced coal burning, the moths changed back to their original color.

The reason for the change is quite clear, because if there is soot on the trees, a white moth will stand out and be easy pickings.

I think it is safe to say that if coal burning once again became popular in that region and soot began covering trees, we can safely predict that the Peppered Moths will once again change to a darker color. This is a clear case of adaptation to abiotic changes in the environment.

It, of course, will not be exactly predictable because the birds that feed on the moths may be affected by other factors. This is not an abiotic effect however. So, the predictable part is only the adaptation to abiotic changes alone.

Hi,

Here are a few references which could be of help to you:

Parkinson P. Gender dysphoria and the controversy over the Safe Schools program. Sex Health. 2017 Oct;14(5):417-422. doi: 10.1071/SH17014.

Haley SG, Tordoff DM, Kantor AZ, Crouch JM, Ahrens KR. Sex Education for Transgender and Non-Binary Youth: Previous Experiences and Recommended Content. J Sex Med. 2019 Nov;16(11):1834-1848. doi: 10.1016/j.jsxm.2019.08.009

Butler G, De Graaf N, Wren B, Carmichael P. Assessment and support of children and adolescents with gender dysphoria. Arch Dis Child. 2018 Jul;103(7):631-636. doi: 10.1136/archdischild-2018-314992

Stynes H, Lane C, Pearson B, Wright T, Ranieri V, Masic U, Kennedy E. Gender identity development in children and young people: A systematic review of longitudinal studies. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2021 Jul;26(3):706-719. doi: 10.1177/13591045211002620

Helyar S, Jackson L, Patrick L, Hill A, Ion R. Gender Dysphoria in children and young people: The implications for clinical staff of the Bell V's Tavistock Judicial Review and Appeal Ruling. J Clin Nurs. 2022 May;31(9-10):e11-e13. doi: 10.1111/jocn.16164

Lopez X, Stewart S, Jacobson-Dickman E. Approach to Children and Adolescents with Gender Dysphoria. Pediatr Rev. 2016 Mar;37(3):89-96; quiz 97-8. doi: 10.1542/pir.2015-0032

Aitken M, VanderLaan DP, Wasserman L, Stojanovski S, Zucker KJ. Self-Harm and Suicidality in Children Referred for Gender Dysphoria. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2016 Jun;55(6):513-20. doi: 10.1016/j.jaac.2016.04.001

Sievert ED, Schweizer K, Barkmann C, Fahrenkrug S, Becker-Hebly I. Not social transition status, but peer relations and family functioning predict psychological functioning in a German clinical sample of children with Gender Dysphoria. Clin Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2021 Jan;26(1):79-95. doi: 10.1177/1359104520964530

Reilly M, Desousa V, Garza-Flores A, Perrin EC. Young Children With Gender Nonconforming Behaviors and Preferences. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2019 Jan;40(1):60-71. doi: 10.1097/DBP.0000000000000612

I think you have answered your question: "It should be noted that when I plot the data, very very few participants chose yes in response to the neutral and positive images. Almost all yes responses were given in response to the negative images."

This is what you'd expect even in a simple 2x2 design. If the probability of a yes response in the positive condition is very high and the probability very low in the negative condition then the OR could be high as its the ratio of a big probability to a very low one.

This isn't unnatural unless the raw probabilities don't reflect this pattern. (There might still be issues but not from what you described).

Hi

Also, kindly check:

Sergii Boltivets Το γνωρίζω ήδη από τις πληροφορίες στη σελίδα σας. Μού κάνει εντύπωση που η Ελληνική είναι τόσο διαδεδομένη στην Ουκρανία. Στην Αυστραλία τη μιλούν μόνο οι Ελληνοαυστραλοί (ώς ένα βαθμό). Ευχαριστώ και πάλι.

Dear Dr. H.G. Callaway ,

Intelligence quotient [IQ] is often hailed as a critical driver of success, especially in fields such as science, innovation, or technology. In fact, many people are endlessly fascinated by looking at the "IQ" scores of the most famous people or those they deduce are superior to themselves, but the reality and the "cruel truth" is that some of the greatest achievements of our "Human Species" have not been based primarily on these assessments, but on true qualities such as creativity, imagination, curiosity or empathy.

My best wishes.

Dear Sven Beecken

I'm sorry I can't say anything about Chomsky's claims, but I'd like to try to add a few things to the discussion. Frege did not establish that words correspond to things but that it is possible to differentiate, within the meaning, between sense and reference; that is, "the morning star" and "the evening star" are two expressions that have different meanings (for example, because one alludes to morning situations and the other does not) but name, designate or refer to the same object or referent (the planet Venus). It must be said, however, that in order to metalinguistically affirm that these two expressions designate the same object, it is necessary to assume an ontology according to which what is seen in the morning and in the afternoon is the same thing; that is, when Cicero wrote De natura deorum, alluding to the morning star (Phosphorus, Lucero or Lucifer) and the evening star (Vesperus or Hespero) as two different entities, the Fregean distinction could have been made but not with these examples. What Tarski does - which to me has little to do with this semantic distinction - is to provide a criterion for any definition of truth in the "material" correspondence sense (in the sense of correspondence to extralinguistic reality), using a formula for expressions different level linguistic sentences (for a metalinguistic sentence and an object sentence): "X is true if and only if p", which is typically exemplified by the famous sentence "'Snow is white' is a true sentence if and only if snow is white". However, in the text itself, where he states that "truth" is a semantic term, he refers to "the truth" as if it were some kind of substance or entity and -fundamentally- as if it were the same as speaking of a term or a definition, which in my opinion rather obscures his claims. But, furthermore, since it can also be said " 'Nothing nothings' is a true sentence if and only if nothing nothings", it seems to me that the formula has much the aspect of a circular or tautological logical device and that, most importantly, which is to explain why a "material" sentence is true and what exactly it means to correspond to a fact precisely remains unexplained.

Also -and despite Chomsky's affirmations-, one must not confuse the thesis that natural language has no reference with the one that it does not describe in the material sense (that it does not describe facts that actually exist), because these affirmations are not equivalents. To speak of reference is to speak of language, and only of language. It can be said that a term or a sentence refers and that does not commit one to the affirmation that this referent exists beyond language, that it can be sustained or not. On the other hand, when it is affirmed that a thing exists or that an event occurs, we are not talking about language, but about a part of the extralinguistic reality that is assumed to exist. For example, and given the Fregean distinction, it can be said that the phlogiston theory refers, because the phlogiston theory is language and the reference is a semantic relation: the phlogiston is the object to which it alludes (its referent), and that in her the term "phlogiston" has a certain meaning, and to say at the same time that her affirmations do not describe any fact or any entity of the world (that phlogiston does not exist), and in the first case, from our metalanguage something is affirmed about a language object (the phlogiston theory) but when it is said that there is no entity in the world that is phlogiston, one is not talking about language and, therefore, nothing is being said about semantic relations. Now, the thesis that natural language does not have a descriptive function, or does not describe extralinguistic facts or entities and properties, has been confuted in various ways, fundamentally assuming different assumptions about its nature, for example, by pragmatist, neopragmatist arguments, by those who maintain that languages ​​are acts or actions, etc. In an article on the beginnings of the Vienna Circle, Carl Hempel says that the thesis that there could be a correspondence between language and facts was already rejected because they were things of a different nature between which there was an "abyss". Perhaps a quick way to express it is to say that there will always be an insurmountable metaphysical difference between the word table, with its meaning, and table, and for some authors that means that "correspondence" is impossible. If you want to complicate things further, a Kantian or neo-Kantian might say that correspondence with facts is impossible because at best there may be a correspondence with what appears to us as facts in the mind.

If we are talking about language, reference and correspondence with facts, it can be problematic to offer arguments that speak of perceptions or words as mental states, since there are several arguments that have opposed the thesis of the mental or internal nature of language natural, from the sciences considering that it is a system of (physical) signs that responds to certain rules and is intended for communication between speakers, and from philosophy authors such as Reichenbach or Carnap have considered that it is not mental, and even Karl Popper has been emphatic about it, considering that it is abstract in nature. Another way of understanding it is by thinking that natural language is a collective evolutionary product of a species of animals, that words and meanings existed before any of us, that we have simply learned to reproduce it in consciousness and use it. That is, is this a philosophy of language debate or a philosophy of mind debate? Thank you.

Law is a set of legal rules that regulate the life of society

Lets collaborate.

I have a newer discussion/thread. If interested then we can discuss it there.

We will have more possibilities to detect, diagnose, treat and heal adult cognitive disorders via digital technology, in terms of patient-centered health hare and self-help.

Thank you everyone. I am now planning to not transform the data, but instead use bootstrapping when running regression and correlational analysis. So I think I am okay. My concern had been that the data was not meeting the assumptions of normality. However, the sample is quite large (at least for a small psychology study) n = 75, so I think it will be okay for the current scope. The data was generated from an experiment that looked at participant's estimations of numbers randomly sampled from a Gaussian distribution, with a set variance and mean. The experiment measured participant's ability to predict the mean of this distribution, by measuring their predictions of numbers outputted across trials (from the computer sampling this distribution). Specifically, it measured the variance between participant's guess of the next number and the actual mean of the distribution which the number were sampled from (by the computer). I'm going to be seeing if participant's performance scores correlate under different conditions, and am also proposing in my research to run a future analysis to see if these scores predict some educational measures (i.e., using hierarchal regression). David Eugene Booth , you make a good question. Mauricio López-Espejo I'm not entirely sure the data represents a normal Gaussian distribution, but my analysis will now make this assumption. John A Heathcote , warning noted! Ette Etuk log 10 transformation = log 10 transformation? Guy Mélard, hope the above clarifies somewhat. Rui de Almeida, I think I follow what you mean, i.e., log 10 simply rescales the Y, but I'm not sure it quite fits with the current issue (that I likely didn't explain clearly). Thank you all again!

We did not patch it, indeed. We still use that previous version of Windows 10 (1607) when needed.

By the way, here is the Table of Contents:

Coevolution economic systems | Economics: general interest | Cambridge University Press

EEG has a poor spatial resolutions, therefor you won't be able to "see" which regions are activated. You will get an approximate localization and summation of brain waves over a big area. If you require subjects to produce speech/ creative conversation you will get many muscle artifacts that will interfere with your data and you will have to remove them later on. As creativity is such a broad skill that relies on many brain areas working simultaneously, it will be hard to disentangle specific patterns of neural activity. I suggest you narrow your research topic and look into the applications of EEG and where it is best used. I hope that was helpful. :)

Define what you mean by "artificial intelligence." If you mean the black box approaches to maximize prediction, obviously not, if you mean "strong AI" then it depends who you are taking with and what they are trying to achieve. Also depends a bit on what you mean by cognitive, psychological foundations, etc. I recommend re-writing your question making clear what you mean.

I think that you would be better off looking at Freud's and Lacan's theory of the ego first, followed by attribution theory in social psychology and the literature on body image. Freud's and Lacan's theory of the self as illusory and the self image is of a piece with the Bhuddist theory 'anatman'.

Try the Crawford-Howell test

It has no scientific credence. Your results may be optimum for the data you have but will not generalize.

There were a number of papers in the 1960s that showed that you could derive perfect models ( R-squared of 100%) from pure random noise. You have clearly used some method in going from 200 to 6/7 variables and if that involves some badness of fit it will undoubtedly capitalise on chance results. You need some form of cross validation built into the process, so that you see how well the candidate model does with data that has been (randomly) admitted.

This is a useful piece - I would start all over again

https://towardsdatascience.com/stopping-stepwise-why-stepwise-selection-is-bad-and-what-you-should-use-instead-90818b3f52df

Dear Patrick,

We have developed Cognitive Human-Machine Systems (CHMS) for advanced aerospace and defence applications, including Avionics/Mission Systems, Air Traffic Management and One-to-Many UAS operations.

Our systems implement adaptive Human-Machine Interfaces and Interactions (HMI2) relying on real-time measurement of neuro-physiological parameters (EEG/fNIR, eye tracking, hart rate, respiration, perspiration, voice patterns and facial expression), processed by a neuro-fuzzy inference engine. This approach drives adaptation in CHMS both in terms of HMI2 and automation levels, creating a pathway to trusted autonomous operations.

Various research projects have been undertaken by my research group (over the past 5 years) in collaboration with Thales Australia, Norrhrop Grumman US and the Australian DoD (Defence Science and Stechnology Group). You may wish to check my RG repository to download our publications.

Please let me know if you require any additional information.

Kind regards,

Rob

Thanks Usman Rashid Daniel Wright . I will try to follow your valuable expert suggestion

Following article might help you

Language acquisition is a multi-factorial, multi-dimensional and multi-stratal phenomenon. If you focus on one aspect, the approach is at the expense of excluding other aspects. A big question as is asked entails a vast reply, the whole scholars in the universe are trying to answer just a portion of what is considered as the most complicated faculty of human species_language. Don't dismay. Btw, plasticity is sth that belongs to pre-puberty. After puberty it is claimed that the plasticity vanishes. Man is stuck in a hard shell rather than a flexible all-absorbing ability. They can master lexico-grammar and also discoursal aspects yet for people after puberty acquiring native-like pronunciation is claimed to be very hard, out of reach or impossible. Notions and factors such as the individual psychology, neurology, physiology, internal motivation; social , cultural, historical factors; power distribution; class, age, gender, ethnicity; natural vs classroom environment, authenticity real life example vs artificial classroom exposure, learning styles and learning strategies; input, intake, and output and still a longer list of factors all have an impact on SLA. We are all on the route to know just part of the system or mechanism , yet there is no conclusive answer. We can easily pose a very short question such as "What is the treatment for cancer?" but the answer is neither conclusive, nor utterable. It involves a huge pile of information concerning numerous factors inspected through various perspectives, "signifying nothing." Yet, as human beings we try to quench our curiosity. In this activity, we are fortunate enough to have a collective curiosity; that is, all the thinkers in applied linguistics collectively try to find a way to better understand SLA. From antiquity, Plato, and Aristotle , to F Saussure, Chomsky, Hymes, Halliday, Gass, Ellis, and many other important scholars they have tried to grasp some aspect of SLA and expand human knowledge on the quest for language learning /acquisition. ... you see, this is not yet finished.

Best wishes. Dr Babak Majidzadeh (PhD)

Andrea,

if your stimuli are relatively simple shapes (letters of the alphabet, geometric shapes like circles, triangles...) control of brightness and contrast is fairly straightforward. Here are the steps:

1) use a photometer to measure the Luminance of 20 or so RGB combinations ranging from say 35, 45 up to 255, in increments of 10. Because your stimuli are BW, your RGB combinations would then be 1) R=G=B=35, 2) R=G=B=45, 3) R=G=B=55, ....23) R=G=B=255

2) statistically model your photometric data with a nonlinear function (exponential functions work well) -- you should get a highly predictive functional fit (Rsq > .9).

3) with this function, you can design the RGB values of your stimuli and stimuli-backgrounds to achieve whatever luminance contrast and brightness (luminance) values you desire.

That's it! -- but here are a few fine points to consider:

a) if your stimuli are complex images with fine detail -- e.g., a BW image of a natural scene or a persons face, then brightness and contrast will vary substantially across the image (depending upon what location within the image the observer is focusing upon at a given moment). So in this case, it doesn't make a lot of sense to claim you have "controlled" contrast and brightness. If on the other hand you are presenting a single BW stimuli, with a single RGB value across its area, and the background of the stimuli is one single RGB value, then to claim you have control over contrast and brightness is more believable

b) regarding the photometric calibration of your display screen (#1 above). you could start at RGB = 0 and go to RGB=255 in increments of 1, but that's a lot of work, and in my experience you don't get a lot more predictive power by doing so. Most displays produce very little light at low RGB levels, and most low-midgrade photometers aren't very accurate or precise measuring low light levels (say less than 10 cd/m2). So starting around 30, 40 or so all the way to 255 (in increments of 10) gives you a good quality function

I'm not really familiar with Brainstorm, nor with Cartool, for source localization I use Fieldtrip toolbox. It's a Matlab-based toolbox, and it has very good documentation and hands-on tutorials as well.

http://www.fieldtriptoolbox.org/tutorial/beamformer/

Let us take an extreme position and see if we can make progress

If we assume, that instead of quantum coherence being a subsequent add-on to the living process, that it is, in fact, intrinsic to the living process. And if we further assume that quantum coherence in living systems is intrinsically robust, and necessarily so, in order to perform its biological function. Then we may be able to address the problem a different way: by paring the issue down to its very basics we may simplify it enough to see the way forward:-

If it is true that consciousness correlates with a macroscopic quantum coherent state.

And if it is also true that this coherent state can effect change in the world of classical physics

Then, given the evidence of our own ontology, the beginning of life on this planet would have coincided with the moment that quantum coherence found a way of breaking through the de-coherence barrier and maintaining coherence employing Occam's razor] as a direct consequence of the way in which

that change is effected.

If this argument holds, and if the soliton instrumental in the

process of catalysis maintains coherence through the process then, we should discover that cognition is not an aspect of life, -but definitive of it.

Hi Dr Atul,

I have sent you, please cehck your RG message.

Dear Michael,

Thank you for the answer you give to Kazuo. However, what do you mean exactly by the <'barbaric' dark ages of man>? Please explain it to me. Thank you again! Marc.

Dear Antonio,

I ne nepsy II, subtest figure memory is spatial memory from new visual material. I don( t know if you get it in Italian norms but you could use it it is non verbal. And in CMS, children memory scale, you could make qith Points location , visual non verbal subtest, also faces immediately remind and the optional subtest for animals and vehicles immediate visual memory.

Best regards

Five of my published papers have been up loaded onto RG to answer such questions:

1，On the Quantitative Cognitions to “Infinite Things” (I)

2，On the Quantitative Cognitions to “Infinite Things” (II)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305537578_On_the_Quantitative_Cognitions_to_Infinite_Things_II

3，On the Quantitative Cognitions to “Infinite Things” (III)

4 On the Quantitative Cognitions to “Infinite Things” (IV)

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/319135528_On_the_Quantitative_Cognitions_to_Infinite_Things_IV

5 On the Quantitative Cognitions to “Infinite Things” (V)

As no one answered my question and I have already found a solution more than a year ago, I'll answer to share it.

First, maturation in cases like this can be mitigated by randomized or pseudorandomized order of the questions. It's the first possible strategy for that. If you offer all participants the order Q1, Q2, Q3, the measurement of Q3 might be distorted by maturation. But if instead you offer one participant this order, and another one the order Q1, Q3, Q2, and another Q3, Q2, Q1, and another Q3, Q1, Q2; Q2,Q1,Q3; and Q2, Q3, Q1, having an "equilibrium" (ensuring all orders are equally available with pseudorandomization) or simply being truly random (reducing effects to chance), you mitigate the effect.

Yet you can also measure the effect of maturation by collecting information about the answering order. Doing so you won't just really prevent the extraneous variable, but also measure it.

I was just reviewing the Oxford Bibliography and was surprised to find the Soren Brier's (2008) Cybersemiotics: Why Information is Not Enough!. Toronto: University of Toronto Press was not mentioned. This is without a doubt the most important look at semiotics in the last twenty years! I highly recommend it.

Thanks for your reply. I will try to search for relevant information on Baidu. Meanwhile, I will try to communicate with professors in China or Taiwan and inquiry related details.

Long ago I simulated maze learning on my MSX-computer (64 kb!) and noticed that, under some conditions, the "rat" fixated itself in repetitive behavior.

Simulating goal-directed, flexible behavior in a system, and then presenting it unsolvable problems or continual negative feedback may reveal interesting behavioral phenomena, reminding of incompleteness-related OCD.

Dear Muhammad Shujahat, Tom Broekel and Jay Klagge,

Thank you for for your answers to my question. I formulate this question since there is a huge inertia in accepting new ideas in understanding the concepts of knowledge, knowledge dynamics, knowledge management and intellectual capital. For details, I attached two papers to explain some aspects of this new framework. Thanks again for your contribution!

I think this will be a great reference for you

(MATLAB code link is also embedded in the article)

This is a great question because spatial cueing research is mainly about variations on a paradigm and it's important to stop and think again about what it all means. So, there is a big literature on ERP effects of spatial cueing, beginning (according to a quick search) with Eimer (1993). Many of these studies would however involve "self generated gazes" - or self-directed attention. For example, Nobre et al. (2000) performed an experiment in which the same (bicoloured, central) stimulus had two possible interpretations (i.e. target is probably right or probably left), according to prior instructions, and got early negative ERP enhancement contralateral to the cued hemifield.

However if we limit the question to exogenous cueing, a recent review by Slotnick (2017) concludes that early ERP effects in visual cortex (C1 component) are more likely to be observed for exogenous than endogenous cues, in upper visual fields, with distractors and with high attention load.

Presumably gamma enhancement and reaction time effects occur later than C1

Eimer, M. (1993) Spatial cueing, sensory gating and selective response preparation: an ERP study on visuo-spatial orienting Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/ Evoked Potentials, 88 (5), pp. 408-420.

Nobre, A.C., Sebestyen, G.N., Miniussi, C. (2000) The dynamics of shifting visuospatial attention revealed by event-related potentials Neuropsychologia, 38 (7), pp. 964-974.

Scott D. Slotnick (2017) The experimental parameters that affect attentional modulation of the ERP C1 component, Cognitive Neuroscience, 9:1-2, 53-62, DOI: 10.1080/17588928.2017.1369021

Thank you Huw Swanborough. The experiment involve multisensory synchrony judgment task, stimuli(Audio-Visual) presented with variable SOAs ranges from 0 ms to around 300ms with 16ms(approx) steps and participants asked to judge whether two events are in synch or not. I use psychtoolbox for stimulus presentation and wanted to verify SOAs externally. It seems digital oscilloscope could also be used for the same purpose as BBTK toolkit (mentioned in the link you have shared). I am looking for ways to how to use digital oscilloscope for the stimulus timing measures. Please let me know, if you have any suggestions on this.

Stephen, thank you for the reply. I didn't correctly express myself and have now corrected the question. I am not interested in one test which would merge all the functions but in all the tests available which cover the mentioned (not all in one test).

I am familiar with the Tower of Hanoi and I saw that the set can be bought online for a reasonable price, but was still hoping that other planning assessment tasks would be available.

Thank you for suggesting the Porteus Maze test, I will look into it.

Hi Martín,

thanks for your answer, very much appreciated! The nuisance regression is part of my resting state preprocessing pipeline. The overall objective is to submit the cleaned data to a Graph theoretical analysis, in which I compare basically how FC changes in relation to psychopharmacological treatment. So, I had the idea to submit the data to a nuisance regression and write out a new 4D Volume which I then go on to process further.

If I understand it correctly, I could also do the Nuisance Regression in SPM12 as covariates. The ROI to ROI approach is, as far as my understanding goes, a lot easier to conduct with other toolboxes like DPABI or GRETNA.

If you have further advice, I'm very grateful for help!

Best regards,

Pablo

I recommend that you first read the articles of specialists (in Attachment). You need the experience of professionals to generate their own ideas.

Domenico,

There is no question about this. Human life is certainly possible in weightless conditions. Many hundreds of humans have lived and worked in these conditions over the last 50 years.

Gravity would still be an identifiable phenomenon - indeed, in a microgravity environment experiments such as the Cavendish experiment would be even easier to perform!

Hi Indrajeet,

Here are a few I've found to be super helpful in my work using a modified attentional blink paradigm to observe capture:

Folk, C. L., Leber, A. B., & Egeth, H. E. (2002). Made you blink! Contingent attentional capture produces a spatial blink. Perception & Psychophysics, 64(5), 741–753.

Folk, C. L., Leber, A. B., & Egeth, H. E. (2008). Top-down control settings and the attentional blink: Evidence for nonspatial contingent capture. Visual Cognition, 16(5), 616–642.

Theeuwes, J. (2010). Top-down and bottom-up control of visual selection. Acta Psychologica, 135(2), 77–99.

Wyble, B., Folk, C. L., & Potter, M. (2013). Contingent attentional capture by conceptually relevant images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 39(3), 861–871.

Thank you all very much!

Thank you all for your answers. It seems that the main conclusion is that you can get a baseline for anxiety/stress but not for the cognitive load imposed by the task (it seems pretty obvious now, when you've pointed it out).

I've used pupilometry as a physiological metric and NASA TLX as self-assessment.

The answer I would give is yes, AI will be adopted in the future. It's an easy answer, because AI means different things to different people.

Maybe most people can agree that AI has a self-learning component. This aspect is necessary for any computer program to be able to accomplish tasks which have not explicitly been predicted, and appropriate algorithms developed ahead of time, by a programmer. If nothing else, one can imagine a control system that tests operational modes to determine safe operating limits. Such as, allow fuel flow to increase until temperature is no longer controllable, then set the limit below that point. Autonomous driving can certainly benefit from such learning, so the vehicle becomes safer with experience. Just like human drivers do, only better, because such algorithms wouldn't be encumbered with emotions, anxieties, distractions, fatigue, panic, and so on.

We already have systems available to the public, that take on some of these characteristics. For instance, in cars, modern engine controls and stability controls. These systems are always testing the limits, always learning, and reacting to conditions right now multiple times faster than humans can. Perhaps the familiarity we have with some of these modern controls makes us dismiss them. But hey. Imagine what someone would have thought just 50 years ago, about cars that can save themselves from skidding out of control, or can stop faster than that panicked human standing on the brakes, or can parallel park all  by themselves, or can constantly be tweaking the spark advance, to keep the engine always on the verge of pinging? All of these tasks accomplished not in some totally pre-programmed way, but by taking existing conditions into account, in real time.

Although some of what passes off as AI is not much more than rule-based programming. Big, nested, logical if statements, that a user would think behave like AI. Then again, isn't that a lot of what human intelligence is? We build a database of effects and their causes, and we act accordingly?

There is no strict "rule", but I can provide you a simple example of framework, considering the text classification task:

STEP 1-Pre-Processing:

Activities that might be performed in this step:

(i) performing a preliminary descriptive statistics study of your collection of documents (e.g.: determine the frequency of each word in the collection, determine the strongest correlations among words, etc.).  

(ii) According to the results of your study you may apply a set of techniques to reduce the problem dimensionality  (stop words, stemming, feature selection, etc.).

STEP 2- Dataset Modeling

- Deciding how to construct your training dataset, i.e., how to transform the collection of documents into a dataset (example: bag of words, n-grams, etc.);

STEP 3- Analysis

- Construction of your text analysis model using one or more algorithms. In the case of classification you have a number of options: k-NN, SVM, Naive Bayes, Neural Networks, etc. 

As I said before, this is just a simplified example.

as Edward said, before deciding the kind of task to use you need to define several aspects of this task and it also depends on your conception of the resources available for processing (do you consider an energetic or unitary view such as Cowan, or Ellis & ashbrook) or componential models such as Baddeley's WM?

Additionally, do you want to collect data about the loading task? I recommend collecting performance measures for the loading task as you will be able to analyze whether participants have indeed focused on this task.

Do you want to interfere with processing involved in the sentence completion task? In this case, you need to have a task that also requires similar verbal processes, such a verbal load (with digits?), or in other terms that interfere with processing in the phonological loop.

Finally, you may also consider having two groups with different loads: low and high. However, it is better to collect data about the sentence completion task performed in single task situation. 

I often use secondary tasks in my research on writing (Olive, 2004 for example, or Olive 2010 the section on secondary tasks).

Hope this will help

Thierry

I am not sure that I understand your paradigm fully, but if there are several different stimuli, an alternative to d' (and SDT altogether) is percent-correct and the body of theory behind that.

The following publications may give some insights. More specifically in the first publication, chapter 3 (methodology) will give some insights.

1.Birner Regina, Surup Gupta and Neeru Sharma (2011) " The political economy of Agricultural Policy reforms in India - Fertilizers and Electricity for irrigation" Research Monograph, International Food Policy Research Institute, US

2.Bullock D.S (2012) " Dangers of using Political Preference Functions in Political Economy Analysis : examples from U.S.Ethanol Policy"  Paper prepared for presentation at the First AIEAA conference ' Towards a Sustainable Bio- economy: Economic Issues and policy Challenges' during 4-5 June 2012 in Trento, Italy

Onur Güntürkün suggests that a mechanism triggered by light

plays a role. Chicks in the shell turn their heads to a

genetically determined side. Human fetuses do this before birth

as well. One of the chicks' eyes gets more light and this

might lead to an asymmetry in the brain, besides

the normal 'handedness'.

Regards,

Joachim

Muchas gracias, José Luis. Revisaré el artículo adjunto.

Dear Joanne,

I agree with Peter König that a visual search task interferes with reading the questionnaire. So I would use an aural search task, which can range from detecting high tones (easy) to detecting a specific rhythm pattern in a stream of beats (difficult). Or let the subjects verify spoken arithmetic problems (e.g. "three plus four is nine"). 

merci pour cette suggestion Martin! je vais 'tchéquer' ça :) sinon je n'avais pas compris que tous verrait ma question! :-/ a+

I think this would work:

Dim N As Integer

for i in n=1 to 100

MyList.SetAttrib n, "RndNumber", Random(100,999)

Next N

This will set a random number inbetween 100 to 999 on each row of the attribute "RndNumber" to the list "MyList" of 100 rows that you have defined in your experiment.

It is still not too late so thank you for that. I will check what they offer.

Does the professor permit you to ask other people for the answer rather than researching the answer on your own?

Dear Adriana! There are various and sometimes conflicting opinions on the subject. Please read manuscripts in the annex to my letter.

Vladimir

Dear Ta-wei Guu,

thank you for your answer! Do you think that light theraphy might be beneficial for people, who suffer from chronic fatigue syndrome, as well? Is it reasonable to apply a light therapy, just as a support to, for instance Cognitive Behavioral Therapy?

Kind regards

The directions (what you tell examinees) are of enormous importance. Tell them the wrong thing, or not enough, and they will not be divergent nor original.  You should NOT tell them that they are "not allowed to repeat." In fact you should tell them that all ideas are good. I have given over 10,000 DT tests and have never seen any problem with repeating ideas.  My own version of the test is "Many Uses." It can be given and scored on a computer.  The best directions are those published by Wallach and Kogan, or Wallach and Wing. Many of us have use them over the hears. I have copies.  

I also have a paper comparing the Uses test to other DT tests (citation below), and there have been 3-4 papers on incubation and time between ideas published in the Creativity Research Journal. 

Runco, M. A., Abdulla, A. M., & Paek, S.-H. Which test of divergent thinking is best? Creativity: Theories-Research-Applications, 3, 4-18.

Let me know if I can help.  --Mark   @markrunco     www.markrunco.com

Thank you for your suggestion. They are very useful to me!

In case you decide that trait measures could be useful: 

Development of the Self-Curiosity Attitude-Interest scale.

By Aschieri, Filippo; Durosini, Ilaria

TPM-Testing, Psychometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, Vol 22(3), Sep 2015, 327-347.

Even though introspection, reflection, and mentalization are important processes in clinical practice, no self-report measure has been developed to address the psychological construct of self-curiosity. This paper addresses this disparity, and provides a new self-report measure on this topic and data on its nomological network. Curiosity about self was initially conceptualized as the desire that people have to explore and understand themselves and their psychological functioning beyond what they already know about themselves. The manuscript presents data from three independent samples used to build the Self- Curiosity Attitude-Interest (SCAI) scale. Data show that the SCAI comprises two dimensions: attitude toward self-curiosity (cognitive propensity toward exploring one’s own inner world) and interest in increasing knowledge of self (emotional/motivational pull to understand oneself better). An independent sample shows good internal consistency, test-retest reliability, and evidence of construct validity of the SCAI. This paper discusses the utility of the SCAI in clinical practice and research. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Interest and Deprivation Type Epistemic Curiosity Model Measure

By Litman, Jordan A.; Mussel, Patrick

2013. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/t27877-000

Construct: Epistemic Curiosity

The Interest and Deprivation Type Epistemic Curiosity Model Measure was developed as part of a study to evaluate of the interest and deprivation type epistemic curiosity (EC), the desire for new knowledge aimed at stimulating pleasurable feelings of situational interest (I-type) or relieving negative affective conditions of feeling deprived of knowledge (D-type). Adolescents and adults responded to German translations of the 10-item Epistemic Curiosity Scale (ECS) and the 15-item Curiosity as a Feeling-of-Deprivation Scale (CFDS). The ESC consists of items assessing (1) taking pleasure in new ideas (Diversive) and pleasure in discovering how things work (Specific). The CDFS consists of 3 subscales assessing (1) desire to increase competence, (2) intolerance for unsolved problems, and (3) persistence in seeking out information. Confirmatory factor analysis resulted in a 10-item scale with 2 distinct factors. Consistent with previous research findings for the English and Chinese EC Scales (Huang et al., 2010; Litman, 2008), the 5 items that comprised the ECS-Diversive subscale (alpha = .77) were the best I-type EC measures, and 5 CFDS-Persistence subscale items (alpha = .78) were found to be the best measures of D-type EC for the German versions as well. Evidence of convergent and discriminant validity were also found. (PsycTESTS Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Development and validation of the German Work-Related Curiosity Scale.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1015-5759/a000098

By Mussel, Patrick; Spengler, Maik; Litman, Jordan A.; Schuler, Heinz

European Journal of Psychological Assessment, Vol 28(2), 2012, 109-117.

Curiosity, a personality trait underlying behavioral tendencies related to knowledge acquisition, learning, and thinking, can be expected to be of high relevance in the world of work. There is, however, to date no work-related curiosity measure. The present article reports results regarding the development and validation of the new 10-item Work-Related Curiosity Scale. Based on two studies, the measure had a one-factor solution, acceptable internal consistency, and expected construct validity. In Study 2, incremental criterion-related validities were found over and above five general curiosity scales (ΔR2 between .12 and .15), which is in line with the frame-of-reference approach underlying the development of the scale. Interestingly, the lack of evidence for criterion-related validity in Study 1 indicates that these results do not generalize across positions. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Work-Related Curiosity Scale

By Mussel, Patrick; Spengler, Maik; Litman, Jordan A.; Schuler, Heinz

2012. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/t29756-000

Construct: Epistemic Curiosity

The 10-item Work-Related Curiosity Scale (Mussell et al., 2012) was developed as an assessment of curiosity that taps behaviors that are especially relevant to the workplace. Based on an agreed-upon definition of curiosity in its epistemic form, 2201 job-related items were developed. Expert evaluation reduced the pool to 38 items. Employees at a German financial service organization completed this scale, and items for the final version were selected based on high discriminatory power, high convergent validity with openness for experience, and content validity. The final 10-item scale, completed by university students, assesses enjoyment of activities like seeking information, knowledge acquisition, learning and thinking, as well as persisting in these activities in exploratory behaviors until the desired information is obtained or the problems have been solved. Norm values on scale level across two studies: M = 52.6, SD = 7.89 (N = 644). Gender-specific norms: female: M = 52.1, SD = 7.83 (N = 343); male: M = 53.1, SD = 8.14 (N = 301). The final scale had acceptable reliability in terms of internal consistency and expected construct validity. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed that a one-dimensional solution explained variance reasonably well. Incremental criterion-related validities were found over and above 5 general curiosity scales. (PsycTESTS Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Curiosity and Exploration Inventory--II (CEI-II)

By Kashdan, Todd B.; Gallagher, Matthew W.; Silvia, Paul J.; Winterstein, Beate P.; Breen, William E.; Terhar, Daniel; Steger, Michael F.

2009. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/t09556-000

Construct: Curiosity

The Curiosity and Exploration Inventory--II (CEI-II, Kashdan et al., 2009) was developed in order to improve upon the original Curiosity and Exploration Inventory (CEI; Kashdan, Rose, & Fincham, 2004) and provide a brief, reliable, valid measure of curiosity that expands the breadth of the construct. A preliminary pool of 36 items was generated and contained revised versions of many of the items of the original CEI. It was generated based on the a priori hypothesis that there may be three facets of curiosity: exploring or stretching, absorption, and embracing uncertainty. Through an iterative process, absorption was removed from the CEI-II item pool to improve reliability and validity. Using a sample of 311 undergraduates, an exploratory factor analysis was conducted and produced two factors (eigenvalues of 3.99 and 1.40) that were clearly interpretable as the stretching and embracing facets of curiosity. The authors then selected the best 10 of the 36 items, resulting in the revised CEI. The CEI-II was determined to have good internal reliability and results of a confirmatory factor analysis provided evidence of validity. (PsycTESTS Database Record (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved)

Epistemic Curiosity Questionnaire (EC)

By Litman, Jordan A.

2008. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/t11264-000

Construct: Epistemic Curiosity

The Epistemic Curiosity Questionnaire (EC Questionnaire; Litman, 2008) was developed to assess the desire for knowledge that motivates individuals to learn new ideas, eliminate information-gaps, and solve intellectual problems. The Epistemic Curiosity Questionnaire included the scale items from the 10-item Epistemic Curiosity Scale (ECS; Litman & Spielberger, 2003) and the 15-item Curiosity as a Feeling-of-Deprivation Scale (CFDS; Litman & Jimerson, 2004). Undergraduate students were instructed to report how they "generally feel" regarding each item statement by rating themselves on the following 4-point frequency scale: 1 = Almost Never, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often, 4 = Almost Always. Exploratory factor analyses of the ECS and CFDS subscales yielded two factors; the first (I-type) involved pleasure associated with discovering new ideas, while the second (D-type) emphasized spending time and effort to acquire a specific answer or solution. Alphas were acceptable for both of the subscales. (PsycTESTS Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

The Measurement and Conceptualization of Curiosity.

doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/GNTP.167.2.117-135

By Reio Jr., Thomas G.; Petrosko, Joseph M.; Wiswell, Albert K.; Thongsukmag, Juthamas

The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, Vol 167(2), Jun 2006, 117-135.

In this study, the authors tried various methods to measure and conceptualize curiosity. A sample of 369 education students (103 men, 266 women) who were attending universities on the East Coast of the United States completed 5 paper-and-pencil curiosity measures in 1 of their classes. Using confirmatory factor analysis, the authors found that the data best fit a 3-factor curiosity model consisting of cognitive curiosity, physical thrill seeking, and social thrill seeking. These findings supported the development of new instruments that specifically measured those 3 curiosity types, new empirical research predicting meaningful curiosity-related outcomes, and subsequent theory building concerning how and why curiosity is a fundamental part of optimal human functioning. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

I think it may be helpful, although a level of disabilty is needed for people to be agreeable to using any of the wearable tehnologies any way this is a review article I hope it helps

A review of wearable sensors and systems with application in rehabilitation

Shyamal Patel,Hyung Park,Paolo Bonato,Leighton Chan andMary Rodgers

Journal of NeuroEngineering and Rehabilitation 20 129:21

DOI: 10.1186/1743-0003-9-21

Event Related Potentials triggered with wireless physiological monitoring and non invasive prefrontal neuroimaging

Ted,

You should take a look at some of the work by Jaron Lanier. He is a computer-scientist, cognitive scientist, computer science philosopher, visual artist and classical music composer. He has written several books on the dangers of the modern internet age, including the danger of "wikis," which I imagine mirrors in many ways the open-source tradition that has evolved in your field. 

Somewhat ironically, here's one quote from "One Half a Manifesto"  from the wikipedia page on him where I think investigation could uncover some interesting relationships between transistor count, software design, and human ideology.: 

'While transistor count increases according to Moore's law, overall performance rises only very slowly. According to Lanier, this is because human productivity in developing software increases only slightly, and software becomes more bloated and remains as error-prone as it ever was. "Simply put, software just won't allow it. Code can't keep up with processing power now, and it never will."[16] At the end he warns that the biggest problem of any theory (esp. ideology) is not that it is false, "but when it claims to be the sole and utterly complete path to understanding life and reality." The impression of objective necessity paralyzes the ability of humans to walk out of or to fight the paradigm and causes the self-fulfilling destiny which spoils people.'

Another relevant quote from wikipedia in which Lanier directly criticizes the "open source" movement as a form of "Digital Maoism":

You Are Not a Gadget (2010)

In his book You Are Not a Gadget (2010), Lanier criticizes what he perceives as the hive mind of Web 2.0 (wisdom of the crowd) and describes the open source and open content expropriation of intellectual production as a form of "Digital Maoism".[21] Lanier argues that Web 2.0 developments have retarded progress and innovation and glorified the collective at the expense of the individual. He criticizes Wikipedia and Linux as examples of this problem; Wikipedia for what he sees as: its "mob rule" by anonymous editors, the weakness of its non-scientific content, and its bullying of experts. Lanier also argues that there are limitations to certain aspects of the open source and content movement in that they lack the ability to create anything truly new and innovative. For example, Lanier argues that the open source movement didn't create the iPhone. In another example, Lanier claims that Web 2.0 makes search engines lazy, destroys the potential of innovative websites like Thinkquest, and hampers the communication of ideas like mathematics to a wider audience. Lanier further argues that the open source approach has destroyed opportunities for the middle class to finance content creation, and results in the concentration of wealth in a few individuals—"the lords of the clouds"—people who, more by virtue of luck rather than true innovation, manage to insert themselves as content concentrators at strategic times and locations in the cloud. In the book, Lanier criticizes the MIDI Standard for musical instrument commonality. His comments brought on rebukes from industry and artists knowledgeable of the standard and suggestions that Lanier published his comments merely as bait for debate.

Here is his criticism of wikis: 

Wikipedia and the omniscience of collective wisdom

In his online essay "Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism", in Edge magazine in May 2006, Lanier criticized the sometimes-claimed omniscience of collective wisdom (including examples such as the Wikipedia article about himself, which he says recurrently exaggerates his film directing work), describing it as "digital Maoism".[18] He writes "If we start to believe that the Internet itself is an entity that has something to say, we're devaluing those people [creating the content] and making ourselves into idiots."[18]

His criticism aims at several targets which concern him and are at different levels of abstraction:

any attempt to create one final authoritative bottleneck which channels the knowledge onto society is wrong, regardless whether it is a Wikipedia or any algorithmically created system producing meta information,

sterile style of wiki writing is undesirable because:it removes the touch with the real author of original information, it filters the subtlety of his opinions, essential information (for example, the graphical context of original sources) is lost, it creates a false sense of authority behind the information,

collective authorship tends to produce or align to mainstream or organizational beliefs, he worries that collectively created works may be manipulated behind the scenes by anonymous groups of editors who bear no visible responsibility, and that this kind of activity might create future totalitarian systems as these are basically grounded on misbehaved collectives which oppress individuals.

This critique is further explored in an interview with him on Radio National's The Philosopher's Zone, where he is critical of the denatured effect which "removes the scent of people".[19]

In December 2006 Lanier followed up his critique of the collective wisdom with an article in Edge titled "Beware the Online Collective".[20] Lanier writes:

I wonder if some aspect of human nature evolved in the context of competing packs. We might be genetically wired to be vulnerable to the lure of the mob....What's to stop an online mass of anonymous but connected people from suddenly turning into a mean mob, just like masses of people have time and time again in the history of every human culture? It's amazing that details in the design of online software can bring out such varied potentials in human behavior. It's time to think about that power on a moral basis.

Lanier argues that the search for deeper information in any area sooner or later requires that you find information that has been produced by a single person, or a few devoted individuals: "You have to have a chance to sense personality in order for language to have its full meaning."[20] That is, he sees limitations in the utility of an encyclopedia produced by only partially interested third parties as a form of communication.

Hope this helps!

Hello Mickael,

I think that the Expertise Psychology literature will be particuliary interesting for you. You can read the"Psychology of talent and Expertise" of F.Gobet for your question about talent.

Unfortunately it will be difficult to find something directly connected with your main question because that requires longitudinal studies. Perhaps you could find it in reading expertise with studies on children learning.

Have a nice day and good luck.

One of the most promising questions re Human Cognition ( vast area) is re brain acting in a unified fashion. Efforts to specify localization - eg for ablation of ictal sites - have NOT met predictions based on localization theory. Instead, we've learned that the brain appears to act as a totality. However we are far from parsing this puzzle about how this totality might operate.  Pribram suggested in the 60's that the brain acts in a holographic fashion - this is still a useful starting point in my opinion.

In any case, we are ignorant about an essential anatomical and neurological brain description necessary to describe total brain activity; how does the Cerebellum interact with the rest of the brain? The cerebellum contains the same number of neurons as the rest of the brain - these are packed so densely that NO scan has been able to penetrate the cerebellum usefully. However, we're presently approaching the necessary resolutions to do so. THUS, I suggest that the study of Cerebellar Dynamics is the most productive area of current human cognition. 

Psychologist Paul McGaffey, PhD(ABD)

look at research by Emery Schubert - it might be helpful

My research is about efficient practice and I have compared sight reading, practice and performance (so not relevant so much for you)

Emery Schubert and Dorrothya Fabian have written around on this topic and have several papers and a great book

and check out Daniel Bangart

Jane Ginsborg has written much with others on memorization process and that might also include material on emotion- she and Chaffin talk about the cues used for memory - and some of these could be looked at as  "emotional" responses to the music - if my memory serves me correctly.