J. M. Fulvio, P. R. Schrater · Journal of Vision · 2012
Many real-world tasks such as interception and navigation require model-based prediction to anticipate future conditions for successful planning and execution of motor responses. In these contexts, error is minimized through accurate model acquisition. Learning the correct model requires accruing a rich set of task information. Response errors enhance this knowledge as different strategies are tested with variable success. We hypothesize that error-correcting actions may not only serve to immediately improve performance, as often concluded from sequential trial dependencies in visuomotor behavior, but also enhance visuomotor training via exploration of model space. We tested this hypothesis using a visuomotor task we call the "helicopter task", in which observers pilot a helicopter through a tunnel by controlling its acceleration, avoiding collision with obstacles and the tunnel itself. Successful planning and execution requires model-based prediction of the helicopter’s dynamics and effects of currently applied controls down the tunnel. The dynamics model comprises the rate of acceleration (control exerted), and the rate of falling (no control exerted). As expected, experience improved observers’ piloting ability: they navigated farther through the tunnel without collision. To assess the degree to which they learned and used the dynamics model, two test tasks were interleaved among piloting sessions. In these tasks, observers adjusted the helicopter’s horizontal position at a fixed, but variable vertical distance from a target in order to ensure contact when released with the controls on (upward acceleration) or turned off (downward drift). Performance in these tasks revealed strong initial sequential trial dependency, yielding responses highly-correlated with previous trial errors that reduced overall response bias. With increased training, this sequential dependency gave way to model-based performance revealed by error dependencies on the vertical distance from which the adjusted helicopter was launched. These results support our hypothesis and demonstrate an important role for error-correction in visuomotor model learning. Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012
Cited by 0Open access
PubMed Central · 1964
Cited by 0Open access
Fabrizio Pollara · Microelectronics · 2018
Error correction techniques based on the addition of redundancy to the original message can be used to control the error rate. The basic ideas of efficient error correction are illustrated in the following example of a Hamming code, a single-error-correcting code belonging to the first class of practical codes invented by Richard Hamming in 1948. Error correction codes can be divided into two different classes: block codes and convolutional codes. Error correcting codes have been applied to a variety of communication systems. Digital data are commonly transmitted between computer terminals, between aircraft, and from spacecraft. Block codes and convolutional codes have similar error-correcting capabilities and the same fundamental limitations. Error detection, which is generally easier to obtain than error correction, is used in applications where it is extremely important to get the correct message or otherwise flag it as unreliable and discard it or ask for retransmission, according to a prescribed protocol as used in automatic-repeat-request systems.
Cited by 0Open access
Penny Ur · Cambridge University Press eBooks · 2012
Cited by 0
Melchior Schuh-Senlis · 2020
Yes, I realized the mistake just after posting the commentary. I tried
Cited by 0Open access
Amsterdam University Press eBooks · 2025
Cited by 0
Applied Psychological Measurement · 1984
Cited by 0
Penny Ur · 2016
This is a controversial topic, but on the whole the consensus today is that error correction helps learning. There are, however, occasional situations where we might prefer not to correct; and there are different ways of doing so, some more effective than others.
Cited by 0
Oldfather, Chad M. · Faculty publications · 2010
Under most accounts of appellate review, error correction stands with law declaration as the core purposes of the process. Yet while a vast amount of scholarship addresses the process of judicial law creation, error correction has received comparatively little attention. Indeed, there appears to be a consensus that it is straightforward and settled, and that the lack of attention is warranted.\nOne goal of this article is to challenge this understanding. To be sure, the architecture of our judiciary reflects a worldview in which legal questions have correct answers and courts' role is simply to find them. On that understanding there is nothing for appellate courts to do but correct error. We no longer inhabit that world. Instead, as the saying goes, "we are all Realists" in that we accept the indeterminacy of legal standards and recognize that courts must often make (rather than merely find) law. This jurisprudential shift has significant implications for error correction. Simply put, it is no longer meaningful to speak of trial court "error" in many cases, leaving the precise nature of the appellate role undefined and likely indefinable if we continue to conceive of it as involving a search for error. That, in turn, creates the possibility that appellate courts can implement the error correction function in widely divergent and inconsistent ways, and that this procedural malleability creates an opportunity for judicial irresponsibility.\nThe article's second goal is to suggest a way out. Rather than attempting to achieve greater conceptual clarity with respect to the nature of error, the article advocates conceiving of the error correction function as involving "derivative dispute resolution." On this view the appellate role involves not a relatively unconstrained search for "error," but rather the task of resolving a second-order dispute between the parties concerning the propriety of the trial court's handling of the case. Such a view, the article contends, provides a way to harness the instrumental genius of the adversary system to provide greater judicial accountability and legitimacy.
Cited by 0Open access
Hegel Society of America, in cooperation with the Philosophy Documentation Center · Owl of Minerva · 1999
Cited by 0
Ming‐Yang Kao · Encyclopedia of Algorithms · 2008
Cited by 0
Wolfgang Scherer · 2019
Cited by 0
Applied Psychological Measurement · 1984
Cited by 1
2013
Cited by 0
Fabrizio Pollara · 2005
Cited by 1
Applied Psychological Measurement · 1983
Cited by 0
Martin H. Weik · 2000
Cited by 0
Nicholas Eriksson (54415), Lior Pachter (54416), Yumi Mitsuya (54417) et al. · Figshare · 2015
<p>Fixed-width windows (shown as the dashed box) over the aligned reads are considered. Two different types of reads are depicted (light versus dark lines), indicating their origin from two different haplotypes. Genetic differences (indicated by circles and squares) provide the basis for clustering reads into groups representing the respective haplotypes. After clustering, errors (marked as crosses) can be corrected.</p>
Cited by 0Open access
Peter Wayner · Elsevier eBooks · 2002
Cited by 0
Oldfather, Chad M. · Faculty publications · 2010
Under most accounts of appellate review, error correction stands with law declaration as the core purposes of the process. Yet while a vast amount of scholarship addresses the process of judicial law creation, error correction has received comparatively little attention. Indeed, there appears to be a consensus that it is straightforward and settled, and that the lack of attention is warranted. One goal of this article is to challenge this understanding. To be sure, the architecture of our judiciary reflects a worldview in which legal questions have correct answers and courts' role is simply to find them. On that understanding there is nothing for appellate courts to do but correct error. We no longer inhabit that world. Instead, as the saying goes, "we are all Realists" in that we accept the indeterminacy of legal standards and recognize that courts must often make (rather than merely find) law. This jurisprudential shift has significant implications for error correction. Simply put, it is no longer meaningful to speak of trial court "error" in many cases, leaving the precise nature of the appellate role undefined and likely indefinable if we continue to conceive of it as involving a search for error. That, in turn, creates the possibility that appellate courts can implement the error correction function in widely divergent and inconsistent ways, and that this procedural malleability creates an opportunity for judicial irresponsibility. The article's second goal is to suggest a way out. Rather than attempting to achieve greater conceptual clarity with respect to the nature of error, the article advocates conceiving of the error correction function as involving "derivative dispute resolution." On this view the appellate role involves not a relatively unconstrained search for "error," but rather the task of resolving a second-order dispute between the parties concerning the propriety of the trial court's handling of the case. Such a view, the article contends, provides a way to harness the instrumental genius of the adversary system to provide greater judicial accountability and legitimacy.
Cited by 0Open access