Threshold Horizon

Footnote 2: "All subjects found this task quite tiring and complained vigorously if the experimenter tried to keep them at the task much over 1 hour per day."

from:
Williams, M. D., & Santos-Williams, S. M. (1980). A method for exploring retrieval processes using verbal protocols. In Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII. Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

I'm proud of this figure I made, cramming 5 dimensions down into 2.  Yes, one of the dimensions is binary, but still!  Not that it'll mean much to anyone, but here's the draft text explaining the figure (taken out of the context of the rest of the manuscript I'm working on writing):

"Figure XX shows, averaged across testing sessions and then across participants, the frequency (represented as bubble diameter) of initial recall responses for all combinations of knowledge and reliving ratings, for the potentially visible response categories only.  Darker shades represent higher mean accuracy ratings (black = 7) and lighter shades represent lower mean accuracy ratings (white = 5.13).  We classify responses above the positive-slope diagonal as semantic, because they had higher ratings in knowledge than in reliving.  We classify responses below the diagonal as episodic, because they had higher ratings in reliving than in knowledge."

PS: This is a manuscript about a memory experiment I did using SenseCam.

excerpt from a manuscript I'm writing:
Completeness.  In the preceding analyses, we calculated the accuracy of participants' unaided memories (i.e., before reviewing pictures from a timeslice). Now we will consider the completeness of participants' unaided memories. The question at hand is: how much of their original experience did participants remember? In the context of the current study, operationalizing accuracy was straightforward because we had the totality of participants’ responses. It was simply a matter of deciding which subset of responses to use for the numerator and which for the denominator. Operationalizing completeness is not so simple, because we must decide how to quantify the participants’ original experiences in order to form the denominator. In a laboratory free recall experiment, this is easy: there were 20 words on the list, so we divide by 20. But what is the totality of everyday experience? What would a 100% complete memory of an ordinary day’s activities be like? Would it be the complete replay of all the activity of every neuron, such that remembering would be like reliving the entire day in every last detail, but as an observer with no agency? In such case, our denominator may as well be infinity.

I've just confirmed with the rockstar APA Style Experts that the format for reporting range statistics is, for example:
range: 39-334

Note that the word "range" is not to be italicized (as opposed to, say, M or SD). I was initially concerned that the use of a dash would be problematic if the maximum value could potentially be negative, but Stefanie Lazer assured me that, "When typeset, negative signs and dashes are set at slightly different levels, so the use of the dash is not quite as problematic as it initially seems.". She also directed me toward an example of range being reported on p. 44 of the APA Publication Manual (6th edition), in the first sentence of the example Methods section.

I think the abbreviation "aka" or "a.k.a." is important enough to warrant inclusion in APA Style. Now that the archives of psychological literature are becoming easier and easier to search and browse, I think it is important for authors to mention alternative terms or phrases for a particular concept they are writing about, given that multiple terms or phrases may be used across sub-fields (aka sub-disciplines) and/or across time. The "aka" abbreviation is an efficient parenthetical tool for doing just that. But there appears to be no obvious standard on whether to use "aka" or "a.k.a.". APA Style specifies standard usage of similar tools (e.g., "i.e.", etc.), so it would be very helpful to have this one specified as well.

[I have just submitted the above comment to the American Psychological Association via this link. If you also think this is a worthwhile cause, please feel free to send them a comment yourself.]

And for the record, I am aware that I do not follow the standard of placing trailing punctuation WITHIN quotation marks above. I think that the standard is silly at best and misleading at worst. It is my opinion that only information that is part of the quotation should appear within the quotation marks, and that subsequent punctuation should be handled just as it is for parenthetical material within a sentence (i.e., placed after the closing parenthesis).

So I am teaching the undergrad intro psychology course this semester.

Today I did one of the best demos yet (for those students who hadn't yet left town for Thanksgiving): I had students use their i-Clicker remote things to vote on which of two seemingly-random shapes they liked better. More of them liked the one on the left better. I then pointed out to them (using an appropriately dramatic powerpoint animation) that the shape on the left was the one that had occasionally been appearing, throughout the semester, in the top-right corner of a powerpoint slide to indicate when the slide corresponded to a particular part of the textbook. So they'd been seeing that shape throughout the semester, but only a few of them had realized that when they voted! Most of 'em were like "whoahh!" So this was a successful demonstration of the "mere exposure effect" (i.e., all else being equal, we tend to have more favorable attitudes toward something we've been exposed to more). I hadn't been sure if it was going to work, but it did. Yes!

Merchant. where: duplicate credit card receipts ("merchant copy").
Patron. where: libraries, and recently noticed at a bank ("parking for bank patrons only").

I've JUST started trying to notice such archaic words in everyday life (anachronisms). Anyone got any others?

Laurel and I took Beaky & Mr. Wiggles out for a picnic at Crystal Lake park. They loved it!



Click for more photos!

L and I went on an expedition to find this on my birthday. It's one of only 3 goat towers in the world!

Carolina Wrens made a nest in the garage/shed in my backyard in Urbana, IL! So I let them have dominion there for a few weeks, and one day in late May (5/26/09) who should pop out but a couple of fledglings for their big debut! A parent (mother, father?) was on hand to provide non-stop feedings and scold off anything in the vicinity. Behold the cuteness:

http://www.jasonfinley.com/photogalleries/CarolinaWrens/Carolina_Wrens.html