L. Hartman, M. Kok, E. Molenaar, E. Griep, J. Laar, J. M. Woerkom, C. Allaart, H. Raterman, Y. Ruiterman, M. Voshaar, J. Redol, R. Pinto, L. Klausch, W. Lems, M. Boers
Medication adherence, which is the extent to which patients take their medication as prescribed, is essential in treating chronic inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Therefore, we nested a subproject in the two-year multicenter Glucocorticoid Low-dose Outcome in Rheumatoid Arthritis (GLORIA) trial to add a low-dose prednisolone (5 mg/day) or placebo to the standard care in older people (≥65 years) with RA. Adherence was measured with an electronic monitoring cap that recorded bottle openings in all patients. In the subproject, we performed an adherence intervention with an advanced cap that could communicate with an application on the smart device via Bluetooth. We randomized patients with a smart device to receive or not to receive adherence reminders on the smart device for three months. Multiple problems emerged that precluded an answer to the research question: sample size (overly optimistic estimates of older patients with a smart device), logistic issues (availability of smartcaps, data extraction), randomization and treatment allocation errors (despite training of personnel), and low quality of the data in the intervention group (hardware failure, discovered too late because data was read in batches). For future trials planning to include a subproject, we recommend keeping it simple, starting with a field test before the actual study starts, and monitoring data from the beginning of the study.
{"title":"The GLORIA adherence subproject: problems and randomization mistakes","authors":"L. Hartman, M. Kok, E. Molenaar, E. Griep, J. Laar, J. M. Woerkom, C. Allaart, H. Raterman, Y. Ruiterman, M. Voshaar, J. Redol, R. Pinto, L. Klausch, W. Lems, M. Boers","doi":"10.36850/e6","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36850/e6","url":null,"abstract":"Medication adherence, which is the extent to which patients take their medication as prescribed, is essential in treating chronic inflammatory diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis (RA). Therefore, we nested a subproject in the two-year multicenter Glucocorticoid Low-dose Outcome in Rheumatoid Arthritis (GLORIA) trial to add a low-dose prednisolone (5 mg/day) or placebo to the standard care in older people (≥65 years) with RA. Adherence was measured with an electronic monitoring cap that recorded bottle openings in all patients. In the subproject, we performed an adherence intervention with an advanced cap that could communicate with an application on the smart device via Bluetooth. We randomized patients with a smart device to receive or not to receive adherence reminders on the smart device for three months. Multiple problems emerged that precluded an answer to the research question: sample size (overly optimistic estimates of older patients with a smart device), logistic issues (availability of smartcaps, data extraction), randomization and treatment allocation errors (despite training of personnel), and low quality of the data in the intervention group (hardware failure, discovered too late because data was read in batches). For future trials planning to include a subproject, we recommend keeping it simple, starting with a field test before the actual study starts, and monitoring data from the beginning of the study.","PeriodicalId":275817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trial and Error","volume":"15 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-10-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125459564","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Based on data triangulation, open-ended questions can be used to overcome a typical problem with data collection using surveys: Human behavior can only be captured as stated or intended, but not as real behavior. In this study on knowledge sharing in the workplace, a quantitative measure of behavioral intention was accompanied by such a qualitative, open-ended measure of behavior. The latter was used as a proxy for real instead of stated behavior. This item was coded according to the effort a participant made in answering. It is assumed that the greater the effort put into answering the open-ended question, the more likely it is that the described behavior will be performed in reality. A factorial experimental design was used to analyze the effect of rewards on employees’ knowledge-sharing behavior. As a within-subject design was used, participants had to answer three open-ended questions referring to different vignettes. A strong order effect appeared, leading to longer answers on average for the first vignette (baseline) compared to subsequent vignettes, independent of treatment. Therefore, this approach to operationalizing behavior in surveys might not be useful in within-subject designs. However, it can be used in between-subject comparisons when participants are asked to answer to a single vignette.Keywords: survey design, survey experiment, real-effort design, human behavior, order effect
{"title":"Real-effort survey designs: Open-ended questions to overcome the challenge of measuring behavior in surveys","authors":"Carolin Fischer","doi":"10.36850/e5","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36850/e5","url":null,"abstract":"Based on data triangulation, open-ended questions can be used to overcome a typical problem with data collection using surveys: Human behavior can only be captured as stated or intended, but not as real behavior. In this study on knowledge sharing in the workplace, a quantitative measure of behavioral intention was accompanied by such a qualitative, open-ended measure of behavior. The latter was used as a proxy for real instead of stated behavior. This item was coded according to the effort a participant made in answering. It is assumed that the greater the effort put into answering the open-ended question, the more likely it is that the described behavior will be performed in reality. A factorial experimental design was used to analyze the effect of rewards on employees’ knowledge-sharing behavior. As a within-subject design was used, participants had to answer three open-ended questions referring to different vignettes. A strong order effect appeared, leading to longer answers on average for the first vignette (baseline) compared to subsequent vignettes, independent of treatment. Therefore, this approach to operationalizing behavior in surveys might not be useful in within-subject designs. However, it can be used in between-subject comparisons when participants are asked to answer to a single vignette.Keywords: survey design, survey experiment, real-effort design, human behavior, order effect","PeriodicalId":275817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trial and Error","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-09-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133303213","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Insight problems are sometimes designed to encourage an incorrect and misleading interpretation that veils a simple answer. The socks problem is one such problem: Given black socks and brown socks in a drawer mixed in a ratio of four to five, how many socks will you have to take out to make sure that you have a pair of the same color? The ratio information is misleading since, with only two colors, pulling three socks will guarantee a matching pair. Recently, offered a distinction between first- and second-order problem-solving: The former proceeds with and through a physical model of the problem, while the latter proceeds in the absence of such interactions with the world, in other words on the basis of mental processes alone. Vallée-Tourangeau and March also proposed a thought experiment, suggesting that the ratio information in the socks problem might be quickly abandoned in a first-order environment, that is, one where participants observe the results of drawing socks out of a bag rather than imagining themselves doing so. We tested this prediction by randomly allocating participants to a low- (second-order) or high- (first-order) interactivity condition. Marginally more participants announced the correct answer within a 5-minute period in the high than in the low condition, although the difference was not significant. Detailed analysis of the video recording revealed the challenges of operationalizing a second-order condition, as participants engaged in dialogical interactions with the experimenter. In addition, the manner in which the high-interactivity condition was designed appeared to encourage the physical reification of the misleading ratio, thus anchoring that information more firmly rather than defusing it through interactivity. We close the paper with some reflections on wide, or systemic, cognition in experimental research on creative problem-solving.
{"title":"Rewilding Cognition: Complex Dynamics in Open Experimental Systems","authors":"Wendy Ross, F. Vallée‐Tourangeau","doi":"10.36850/e4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36850/e4","url":null,"abstract":"Insight problems are sometimes designed to encourage an incorrect and misleading interpretation that veils a simple answer. The socks problem is one such problem: Given black socks and brown socks in a drawer mixed in a ratio of four to five, how many socks will you have to take out to make sure that you have a pair of the same color? The ratio information is misleading since, with only two colors, pulling three socks will guarantee a matching pair. Recently, offered a distinction between first- and second-order problem-solving: The former proceeds with and through a physical model of the problem, while the latter proceeds in the absence of such interactions with the world, in other words on the basis of mental processes alone. Vallée-Tourangeau and March also proposed a thought experiment, suggesting that the ratio information in the socks problem might be quickly abandoned in a first-order environment, that is, one where participants observe the results of drawing socks out of a bag rather than imagining themselves doing so. We tested this prediction by randomly allocating participants to a low- (second-order) or high- (first-order) interactivity condition. Marginally more participants announced the correct answer within a 5-minute period in the high than in the low condition, although the difference was not significant. Detailed analysis of the video recording revealed the challenges of operationalizing a second-order condition, as participants engaged in dialogical interactions with the experimenter. In addition, the manner in which the high-interactivity condition was designed appeared to encourage the physical reification of the misleading ratio, thus anchoring that information more firmly rather than defusing it through interactivity. We close the paper with some reflections on wide, or systemic, cognition in experimental research on creative problem-solving.","PeriodicalId":275817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trial and Error","volume":"8 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-08-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"130135234","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Complementary explanation is an approach to falsify more theories. This counteracts the current bias toward supporting theories.
补充解释是一种可以证伪更多理论的方法。这抵消了目前对支持理论的偏见。
{"title":"An Introduction to Complementary Explanation","authors":"Joeri van Hugten","doi":"10.31235/osf.io/tvcb4","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/tvcb4","url":null,"abstract":"Complementary explanation is an approach to falsify more theories. This counteracts the current bias toward supporting theories.","PeriodicalId":275817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trial and Error","volume":"10 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"129365386","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
P. Diloksumpan, F. Abinzano, M. de Ruijter, A. Mensinga, S. Plomp, I. Khan, H. Brommer, I. Smit, Miguel Dias Castilho, P. R. van Weeren, J. Malda, R. Levato
Articular cartilage damage is a major challenge in healthcare due to the lack of long-term repair options. There are several promising regenerative implant-based approaches for the treatment, but the fixation of the implant remains a significant challenge. This study evaluated the potential for repair of an osteochondral implant produced through a novel combined bioprinting-based chondral-bone integration, with and without cells, in an equine model. Implants consisted of a melt electrowritten polycaprolactone (PCL) framework for the chondral compartment, which was firmly integrated with a bone anchor. The bone anchor was produced by extrusion-based printing of a low-temperature setting bioceramic material that had been proven to be effective for osteo-regeneration in an orthotopic, non-load bearing and non-articular site in the same species in an earlier in vivo study. Articular cartilage-derived progenitor cells were seeded into the PCL framework and cultured for 28 days in vitro in the presence of bone morphogenetic protein-9 (BMP-9), resulting in the formation of abundant extracellular matrix rich in glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) and type II collagen. The constructs were implanted in the stifle joints of Shetland ponies with cell-free scaffolds as controls. Clinical signs were monitored, and progression of healing was observed non-invasively through radiographic examinations and quantitative gait analysis. Biochemical and histological analyses 6 months after implantation revealed minimal deposition of GAGs and type II collagen in the chondral compartment of the defect site for both types of implants. Quantitative micro-computed tomography showed collapse of the bone anchor with low volume of mineralized neo-bone formation in both groups. Histology confirmed that the PCL framework within the chondral compartment was still present. It was concluded that the collapse of the osteal anchor, resulting in loss of the mechanical support of the chondral compartment, strongly affected overall outcome, precluding evaluation of the influence of BMP-9 stimulated cells on in vivo cartilage regeneration.
{"title":"The Complexity of Joint Regeneration: How an Advanced Implant could Fail by Its In Vivo Proven Bone Component","authors":"P. Diloksumpan, F. Abinzano, M. de Ruijter, A. Mensinga, S. Plomp, I. Khan, H. Brommer, I. Smit, Miguel Dias Castilho, P. R. van Weeren, J. Malda, R. Levato","doi":"10.36850/E3","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36850/E3","url":null,"abstract":"Articular cartilage damage is a major challenge in healthcare due to the lack of long-term repair options. There are several promising regenerative implant-based approaches for the treatment, but the fixation of the implant remains a significant challenge. This study evaluated the potential for repair of an osteochondral implant produced through a novel combined bioprinting-based chondral-bone integration, with and without cells, in an equine model. Implants consisted of a melt electrowritten polycaprolactone (PCL) framework for the chondral compartment, which was firmly integrated with a bone anchor. The bone anchor was produced by extrusion-based printing of a low-temperature setting bioceramic material that had been proven to be effective for osteo-regeneration in an orthotopic, non-load bearing and non-articular site in the same species in an earlier in vivo study. Articular cartilage-derived progenitor cells were seeded into the PCL framework and cultured for 28 days in vitro in the presence of bone morphogenetic protein-9 (BMP-9), resulting in the formation of abundant extracellular matrix rich in glycosaminoglycans (GAGs) and type II collagen. The constructs were implanted in the stifle joints of Shetland ponies with cell-free scaffolds as controls. Clinical signs were monitored, and progression of healing was observed non-invasively through radiographic examinations and quantitative gait analysis. Biochemical and histological analyses 6 months after implantation revealed minimal deposition of GAGs and type II collagen in the chondral compartment of the defect site for both types of implants. Quantitative micro-computed tomography showed collapse of the bone anchor with low volume of mineralized neo-bone formation in both groups. Histology confirmed that the PCL framework within the chondral compartment was still present. It was concluded that the collapse of the osteal anchor, resulting in loss of the mechanical support of the chondral compartment, strongly affected overall outcome, precluding evaluation of the influence of BMP-9 stimulated cells on in vivo cartilage regeneration.","PeriodicalId":275817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trial and Error","volume":"5 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"127412215","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Pain can be considered as a signal of “bodily error”: Errors – discrepancies between actual and optimal/targeted state – can put organisms at danger and activate behavioral defensive systems. If the error relates to the body, pain is the warning signal that motivates protective action such as avoidance behavior to safeguard our body’s integrity. Hence, pain shares the functionality of errors. On the neural level, an important error processing component is the error-related negativity (ERN), a negative deflection in the electroencephalographic (EEG) signal generated primarily in the anterior cingulate cortex within 100 ms after error commission. Despite compelling evidence that the ERN plays an important role in the development of various psychopathologies and is implicated in learning and adjustment of behavior, its relation to pain-related avoidance has not yet been examined. Based on findings from anxiety research, it seems conceivable that individuals with elevated ERN amplitudes are more prone to engage in pain-related avoidance behavior, which may, under certain conditions, be a risk factor for developing chronic pain. Consequently, this new line of research promises to contribute to our understanding of human pain. As in most novel research areas, a first crucial step for integrating the scientific fields of ERN and pain is developing a paradigm suited to address the needs from both fields. The present manuscript presents the development and piloting of an experimental task measuring both ERN and avoidance behavior in response to painful mistakes, as well as the challenges encountered herein. A total of 12 participants underwent one of six different task versions. We describe in detail each of these versions, including their results, shortcomings, our solutions, and subsequent steps. Finally, we provide some advice for researchers aiming at developing novel paradigms.
{"title":"Peer Review of \"Trial and Error (-Related Negativity): An Odyssey of Integrating Different Experimental Paradigms","authors":"Ilona Domen, K. Groot","doi":"10.36850/e2.pr1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36850/e2.pr1","url":null,"abstract":"Pain can be considered as a signal of “bodily error”: Errors – discrepancies between actual and optimal/targeted state – can put organisms at danger and activate behavioral defensive systems. If the error relates to the body, pain is the warning signal that motivates protective action such as avoidance behavior to safeguard our body’s integrity. Hence, pain shares the functionality of errors. On the neural level, an important error processing component is the error-related negativity (ERN), a negative deflection in the electroencephalographic (EEG) signal generated primarily in the anterior cingulate cortex within 100 ms after error commission. Despite compelling evidence that the ERN plays an important role in the development of various psychopathologies and is implicated in learning and adjustment of behavior, its relation to pain-related avoidance has not yet been examined. Based on findings from anxiety research, it seems conceivable that individuals with elevated ERN amplitudes are more prone to engage in pain-related avoidance behavior, which may, under certain conditions, be a risk factor for developing chronic pain. Consequently, this new line of research promises to contribute to our understanding of human pain. As in most novel research areas, a first crucial step for integrating the scientific fields of ERN and pain is developing a paradigm suited to address the needs from both fields. The present manuscript presents the development and piloting of an experimental task measuring both ERN and avoidance behavior in response to painful mistakes, as well as the challenges encountered herein. A total of 12 participants underwent one of six different task versions. We describe in detail each of these versions, including their results, shortcomings, our solutions, and subsequent steps. Finally, we provide some advice for researchers aiming at developing novel paradigms.","PeriodicalId":275817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trial and Error","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128366882","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Studies in the field of psychology often employ (computerised) behavioural tasks, aimed at mimicking real-world situations that elicit certain actions in participants. Such tasks are for example used to study risk propensity, a trait-like tendency towards taking or avoiding risk. One of the most popular tasks for gauging risk propensity is the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART; Lejuez et al., 2002), which has been shown to relate well to self-reported risk-taking and to real-world risk behaviours. However, despite its popularity and qualities, the BART has several methodological shortcomings, most of which have been reported before, but none of which are widely known. In the present paper, four such problems are explained and elaborated on: a lack of clarity as to whether decisions are characterised by uncertainty or risk; censoring of observations; confounding of risk and expected value; and poor decomposability into adaptive and maladaptive risk behaviour. Furthermore, for every problem, a range of possible solutions is discussed, which overall can be divided into three categories: using a different, more informative outcome index than the standard average pump score; modifying one or more task elements; or using a different task, either an alternative risk-taking task (sequential or otherwise), or a custom-made instrument. It is important to make use of these solutions, as applying the BART without accounting for its shortcomings may lead to interpretational problems, including false positive and false negative results. Depending on the research aims of a given study, certain shortcomings are more pressing than others, indicating the (type of) solutions most needed. By combining solutions and openly discussing shortcomings, researchers may be able to modify the BART in such a way that it can operationalise risk propensity without substantial methodological problems.
心理学领域的研究经常采用(计算机化的)行为任务，旨在模仿现实世界的情况，从而引发参与者的某些行为。例如，这些任务用于研究风险倾向，即承担或避免风险的倾向。衡量风险倾向的最流行的任务之一是气球模拟风险任务(BART;Lejuez et al.， 2002)，这已被证明与自我报告的冒险行为和现实世界的风险行为有很好的关系。然而，尽管BART广受欢迎，质量也很好，但它在方法上有几个缺点，其中大部分都是以前报道过的，但没有一个是广为人知的。在本文中，解释和阐述了四个这样的问题:决策是否具有不确定性或风险的特征缺乏明确性;对观察结果的审查;风险与期望值的混淆;难以分解为适应和不适应的风险行为。此外，对于每个问题，讨论了一系列可能的解决方案，总体上可分为三类:使用不同的、比标准平均泵评分更有信息量的结果指标;修改一个或多个任务元素;或者使用不同的任务，要么是另一项冒险任务(顺序或其他)，要么是定制的工具。重要的是要利用这些解决方案，因为应用BART而不考虑其缺点可能导致解释问题，包括假阳性和假阴性结果。根据特定研究的研究目的，某些缺点比其他缺点更紧迫，这表明最需要的解决方案(类型)。通过结合解决方案和公开讨论缺点，研究人员可能能够以这样一种方式修改BART，使其能够在不存在实质性方法问题的情况下操作风险倾向。
{"title":"Peer Review of \"Burst Beliefs - Methodological Problems in the Balloon Analogue Risk Task and Implications for its Use\"","authors":"M. Young, Sihua Xu","doi":"10.36850/mr1.pr1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36850/mr1.pr1","url":null,"abstract":"Studies in the field of psychology often employ (computerised) behavioural tasks, aimed at mimicking real-world situations that elicit certain actions in participants. Such tasks are for example used to study risk propensity, a trait-like tendency towards taking or avoiding risk. One of the most popular tasks for gauging risk propensity is the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART; Lejuez et al., 2002), which has been shown to relate well to self-reported risk-taking and to real-world risk behaviours. However, despite its popularity and qualities, the BART has several methodological shortcomings, most of which have been reported before, but none of which are widely known. In the present paper, four such problems are explained and elaborated on: a lack of clarity as to whether decisions are characterised by uncertainty or risk; censoring of observations; confounding of risk and expected value; and poor decomposability into adaptive and maladaptive risk behaviour. Furthermore, for every problem, a range of possible solutions is discussed, which overall can be divided into three categories: using a different, more informative outcome index than the standard average pump score; modifying one or more task elements; or using a different task, either an alternative risk-taking task (sequential or otherwise), or a custom-made instrument. It is important to make use of these solutions, as applying the BART without accounting for its shortcomings may lead to interpretational problems, including false positive and false negative results. Depending on the research aims of a given study, certain shortcomings are more pressing than others, indicating the (type of) solutions most needed. By combining solutions and openly discussing shortcomings, researchers may be able to modify the BART in such a way that it can operationalise risk propensity without substantial methodological problems.","PeriodicalId":275817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trial and Error","volume":"328 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"133940546","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This paper is about error on three levels. First of all, it deals with research into the ERN, error-related negativity. The ERN is a negative deflection in the EEG signal, which tends to occur within 100 milliseconds of making an error. The authors hypothesize that physical pain can be considered as a bodily signal that a type of error has been committed: there is a "discrepancy between the actual and optimal/targeted state", as the authors put it (p.1). This raises the question whether the ERN is also associated with pain and the avoidance of pain, and if so how. More specifically the authors want to know whether people with an elevated ERN are more prone to avoidance behaviour, which in turn can lead to chronic pain. I am an historian of psychology with philosophical interests and have no expertise in clinical neuropsychology, so I will not comment on this hypothesis. But the paper also deals with error in two other ways, which I do feel able to reflect on. The authors describe their attempts to develop an experimental paradigm for the study of the role of the ERN in pain avoidance. In these attempts they make errors which they then try to correct in a further attempt, six task versions in total. This is the second way this paper deals with errors -those of the experimenters themselves. But there is a third level too: it is crucial for the experimental task to induce the participant to make the right number of errors -not too many, not too few. The second and third aspects are obviously related: the errors of the experimenters concern, among others, the number of errors the participants make. The authors describe their challenge as an interdisciplinary one: they had to combine elements of neurophysiology (ERN) with clinical psychology (pain avoidance). Specifically: they had to somehow induce an ERN in the participants, and elicit and measure some type of avoidance behaviour at the same time. Moreover, to determine what each participant’s average ERN is, they needed at least six ERN measures per participant, and thus a minimum of six errors. The errors, finally, had to be "inhibition errors", not errors due to lack of knowledge or skill. It wasn’t clear to me why this was important, or what an inhibition error is in the first place, but this is no doubt due to my own lack of knowledge in this field. All in all, the specifications of the task were narrow and demanding: not any type of error would do (only inhibition errors); the errors had to produce a proper ERN; a minimum of six was needed; the participants had to be aware of their error (otherwise they would not show avoidance behaviour); and of course there had to be pain associated with the errors, but not so much pain that the ethics committee would reject the pilot study, or the subjects would refuse to participate. What followed was a kind of dance, or rather a series of dances, with the experimenters leading the participants, successively trying different choreographies in an attempt to
本文从三个层面探讨误差。首先，它涉及到对ERN的研究，错误相关的消极性。ERN是脑电图信号中的负偏转，往往发生在犯错后100毫秒内。作者假设，身体上的疼痛可以被认为是一种身体信号，表明犯了某种错误:正如作者所说，“实际状态与最佳/目标状态之间存在差异”(第1页)。这就提出了一个问题，ERN是否也与疼痛和回避疼痛有关，如果是的话，又是如何关联的。更具体地说，作者想知道，ERN水平升高的人是否更容易出现回避行为，从而导致慢性疼痛。我是一个有哲学兴趣的心理学历史学家，对临床神经心理学没有专业知识，所以我不会对这个假设发表评论。但这篇论文也从另外两个方面处理了错误，我确实觉得这是可以反思的。作者描述了他们试图开发一个实验范式来研究ERN在疼痛回避中的作用。在这些尝试中，他们犯了错误，然后他们试图在进一步的尝试中纠正，总共六个任务版本。这是本文处理错误的第二种方式——实验者自己的错误。但还有第三个层面:对于实验任务来说，诱导参与者犯正确数量的错误——不要太多，也不要太少——是至关重要的。第二个和第三个方面明显相关:实验人员的错误与参与者犯错误的次数有关。作者将他们的挑战描述为跨学科的挑战:他们必须将神经生理学(ERN)与临床心理学(疼痛回避)相结合。具体来说:他们必须以某种方式在参与者中诱导ERN，同时引发并测量某种类型的回避行为。此外，为了确定每个参与者的平均ERN是多少，他们至少需要每个参与者测量6个ERN，因此至少需要6个错误。最后，这些错误必须是“抑制错误”，而不是由于缺乏知识或技能而导致的错误。我不清楚为什么这很重要，或者什么是抑制错误，但毫无疑问，这是由于我自己在这个领域缺乏知识。总而言之，任务的规格是狭窄而苛刻的:任何类型的错误都不行(只有抑制错误);误差必须产生合适的ERN;至少需要六个;参与者必须意识到他们的错误(否则他们不会表现出回避行为);当然，这些错误会带来痛苦，但不会痛苦到伦理委员会会拒绝试点研究，或者受试者会拒绝参与。接下来是一种舞蹈，或者更确切地说是一系列舞蹈，由实验者带领参与者，依次尝试不同的舞蹈编排，试图让他们的搭档做出正确的动作，而不是踩到他们的脚趾。在最近的一篇文章中，Brenninkmeijer、Rietzschel和我报道了我们对心理学研究人员进行的一系列采访(Brenninkmeijer et al.， 2019)。我们询问了他们的非正式研究实践，也就是说，那些在论文的方法部分没有明确说明但仍然被认为是重要的实践。我们在他们的回答中看到了两个主题。首先是对专业精神的强烈关注，在有序的实验室和顺利进行的实验中表现出自己的优秀，并尊重参与者的行为。第二个主题是关注通过管理参与者的表现来产生良好的数据。第二个主题与这篇关于“试错”的论文有关。在实验室里完成的大部分工作，包括我们在采访中探索的那种非正式的、不成文的工作，都是为了从参与者那里引出正确的行为。在实验室里发生的事情有一种戏剧的性质:一种特定的表演是被期望从参与者那里得到的，他们被实验的舞台和脚本(或编排)以及实验者的行为所引导。我们的受访者提到
{"title":"Peer Review of \"Reflection on 'Trial and Error (-Related Negativity)'","authors":"Stefan Gaillard, S. Devine","doi":"10.36850/r2.pr1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36850/r2.pr1","url":null,"abstract":"This paper is about error on three levels. First of all, it deals with research into the ERN, error-related negativity. The ERN is a negative deflection in the EEG signal, which tends to occur within 100 milliseconds of making an error. The authors hypothesize that physical pain can be considered as a bodily signal that a type of error has been committed: there is a \"discrepancy between the actual and optimal/targeted state\", as the authors put it (p.1). This raises the question whether the ERN is also associated with pain and the avoidance of pain, and if so how. More specifically the authors want to know whether people with an elevated ERN are more prone to avoidance behaviour, which in turn can lead to chronic pain. I am an historian of psychology with philosophical interests and have no expertise in clinical neuropsychology, so I will not comment on this hypothesis. But the paper also deals with error in two other ways, which I do feel able to reflect on. The authors describe their attempts to develop an experimental paradigm for the study of the role of the ERN in pain avoidance. In these attempts they make errors which they then try to correct in a further attempt, six task versions in total. This is the second way this paper deals with errors -those of the experimenters themselves. But there is a third level too: it is crucial for the experimental task to induce the participant to make the right number of errors -not too many, not too few. The second and third aspects are obviously related: the errors of the experimenters concern, among others, the number of errors the participants make. The authors describe their challenge as an interdisciplinary one: they had to combine elements of neurophysiology (ERN) with clinical psychology (pain avoidance). Specifically: they had to somehow induce an ERN in the participants, and elicit and measure some type of avoidance behaviour at the same time. Moreover, to determine what each participant’s average ERN is, they needed at least six ERN measures per participant, and thus a minimum of six errors. The errors, finally, had to be \"inhibition errors\", not errors due to lack of knowledge or skill. It wasn’t clear to me why this was important, or what an inhibition error is in the first place, but this is no doubt due to my own lack of knowledge in this field. All in all, the specifications of the task were narrow and demanding: not any type of error would do (only inhibition errors); the errors had to produce a proper ERN; a minimum of six was needed; the participants had to be aware of their error (otherwise they would not show avoidance behaviour); and of course there had to be pain associated with the errors, but not so much pain that the ethics committee would reject the pilot study, or the subjects would refuse to participate. What followed was a kind of dance, or rather a series of dances, with the experimenters leading the participants, successively trying different choreographies in an attempt to","PeriodicalId":275817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trial and Error","volume":"36 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"125097582","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Why do citizens in some countries take more responsibility for the well-being of others than in other countries? This project seeks to understand the genesis of prosociality, investigating its biological foundations, the influence of cultural traditions, and effects of political, economic and legal structure. The dominant theory in economics views philanthropy as a solution to social illnesses that the market and the state are not solving, a view complementary to political science theory on preferences for government provision. Sociologists focus on social norms emerging from religious traditions. Cultural evolutionary theory highlights the instrumental value of trust. Still other theories have suggested a role for natural selection of genes. However, these theories have not been tested stringently nor simultaneously. Also the project includes a very important factor largely ignored thus far: political, legal and economic institutions also affect the level of giving as well as who gives to which causes. Therefore, the objectives of Global Giving are (1) to map country differences in the size and nature of philanthropy across the world; (2) to develop and test multidisciplinary theories explaining these differences; (3) to facilitate international collaboration across disciplinary boundaries in research on philanthropy. The research draws upon 200 surveys recently harmonized by the PI and on new data on philanthropy to be collected among large samples in 145 countries across all continents. Collaboration with international networks of academics safeguards the validity of the questionnaires and experiments. Appropriate multilevel regression models will be used, the lack of which caused biases in previous research. An integrated understanding of philanthropy is useful not only for theory development, but also for government policy makers and practitioners in nonprofit organizations seeking to mobilize philanthropic contributions and make them more effective. The application in practice is ensured through collaboration with a large network of practitioners.
{"title":"Global Giving","authors":"R. Bekkers","doi":"10.36850/rga2","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36850/rga2","url":null,"abstract":"Why do citizens in some countries take more responsibility for the well-being of others than in other countries? This project seeks to understand the genesis of prosociality, investigating its biological foundations, the influence of cultural traditions, and effects of political, economic and legal structure. The dominant theory in economics views philanthropy as a solution to social illnesses that the market and the state are not solving, a view complementary to political science theory on preferences for government provision. Sociologists focus on social norms emerging from religious traditions. Cultural evolutionary theory highlights the instrumental value of trust. Still other theories have suggested a role for natural selection of genes. However, these theories have not been tested stringently nor simultaneously. Also the project includes a very important factor largely ignored thus far: political, legal and economic institutions also affect the level of giving as well as who gives to which causes. Therefore, the objectives of Global Giving are (1) to map country differences in the size and nature of philanthropy across the world; (2) to develop and test multidisciplinary theories explaining these differences; (3) to facilitate international collaboration across disciplinary boundaries in research on philanthropy. The research draws upon 200 surveys recently harmonized by the PI and on new data on philanthropy to be collected among large samples in 145 countries across all continents. Collaboration with international networks of academics safeguards the validity of the questionnaires and experiments. Appropriate multilevel regression models will be used, the lack of which caused biases in previous research. An integrated understanding of philanthropy is useful not only for theory development, but also for government policy makers and practitioners in nonprofit organizations seeking to mobilize philanthropic contributions and make them more effective. The application in practice is ensured through collaboration with a large network of practitioners.","PeriodicalId":275817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trial and Error","volume":"93 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"128836168","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Introduction The paper ‘Alcohol cues and aggressive thoughts’ reports a failed attempt at reproducing two experiments. The massive shortcomings of the reported reproduction are obvious. For a moment I was tempted to think that the authors, in the form of a standard psychological paper, were presenting a philosophical critique of this type of experiments. In my comment I will try to formulate such a critique in a more straightforward manner. I will first give a brief and plain description of what happened in the experiment and why it was done, according to the authors. Then I will say a few things about the complexity of producing and reproducing experiments in general, followed by a section on the problems of the specific type of experiments of which this one is a specimen: priming studies, mostly found in the subdiscipline of social psychology and since almost a decade the subject of a vigorous debate among methodologists, philosophers of science, priming researchers, in scientific journals, but also in newspapers, magazines, blogs and on Twitter. I will end with assessing the possibilities and the limits of doing experiments in the human sciences: what can we learn from experiments on alcohol cues if we want to tackle physical, mental and social harm, attributed to the consumption of alcohol?
{"title":"Peer Review of \"Experiment and Fail\"","authors":"S. Devine, Stefan Gaillard","doi":"10.36850/r1.pr1","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.36850/r1.pr1","url":null,"abstract":"Introduction The paper ‘Alcohol cues and aggressive thoughts’ reports a failed attempt at reproducing two experiments. The massive shortcomings of the reported reproduction are obvious. For a moment I was tempted to think that the authors, in the form of a standard psychological paper, were presenting a philosophical critique of this type of experiments. In my comment I will try to formulate such a critique in a more straightforward manner. I will first give a brief and plain description of what happened in the experiment and why it was done, according to the authors. Then I will say a few things about the complexity of producing and reproducing experiments in general, followed by a section on the problems of the specific type of experiments of which this one is a specimen: priming studies, mostly found in the subdiscipline of social psychology and since almost a decade the subject of a vigorous debate among methodologists, philosophers of science, priming researchers, in scientific journals, but also in newspapers, magazines, blogs and on Twitter. I will end with assessing the possibilities and the limits of doing experiments in the human sciences: what can we learn from experiments on alcohol cues if we want to tackle physical, mental and social harm, attributed to the consumption of alcohol?","PeriodicalId":275817,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Trial and Error","volume":"33 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2020-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"124459370","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：