[From Bruce Abbott (2010.01.22.2155)]
Hmm. Somehow the
article at the following link seems so familiar . . . http://www.journalofvision.org/9/13/14/Fink-2009-jov-9-13-14.pdf
The Marken paper on the same topic is cited – barely.
Bruce A.
[From Rick Marken (2010.01.22.2250)]
Bruce Abbott (2010.01.22.2155)]
Hmm.� Somehow the article at the following link seems so familiar . . .
http://www.journalofvision.org/9/13/14/Fink-2009-jov-9-13-14.pdfThe Marken paper on the same topic is cited � barely.
Actually, I was thrilled by the reference to my paper. Indeed, it
looks like my pape provides the basis for the research described by
Fink et al. Look at what they say:
"One way to dissociate them [the different theories of the variable
controlled when catching a ball--RM] is to use virtual reality to
create physically impossible trajectories by perturbing the ball in
flight and testing which relations are held constant (Marken, 2005)".
It's just a short reference but this is exactly the kind of research I
was recommending in that 2005 JEP:HPP paper. I'll have to read the
Fink et al paper more closely to see if they did a good job. But at
first glance it looks like they are doing precisely what I
recommended: testing for the controlled variable involved in catching
by introducing the appropriate disturbances to the trajectory of the
ball, something that can most easily be done (and apparently is what
was done) using "virtual reality".
But even if they didn't do "the test" exactly, they apparently tried
(based on my suggestion) so I'm thrilled to see this paper. I finally
had one little influence on psychological research. Whopee!
Best
Rick
···
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Rick Marken (2010.01.23.1720)]
Bruce Abbott (2010.01.22.2155)-
Hmm.� Somehow the article at the following link seems so familiar . . .
http://www.journalofvision.org/9/13/14/Fink-2009-jov-9-13-14.pdfThe Marken paper on the same topic is cited � barely.
Well, I read the paper more carefully and it really isn't bad. Of
course, they look at catching in S-R terms; they are trying to find
the variables that "guide" output (changes in field position). But
they did do a version of the test for the controlled variable. Not a
very good version but OK. For example, they tested to see if optical
acceleration is controlled by correlating tan (alpha) (tan of optical
angle of the ball over time) with time. The idea was that if optical
acceleration is controlled, the correlation with be 1.0 and indeed the
correlation was .99. But there are much better ways to test for
controlled variables; I'd love to have their data so that I can try
some. I will write to Warren (the last author but, I believe, the lead
investigator) and see if I can get his data. I'll also suggest some
other experiments he might do. He has an amazing VR (virtual reality)
set up in his lab; I'm sure he would like to use it for all kinds of
studies of the optical variables controlled when people do all kinds
of different things besides catching baseballs.
But still the paper does just what I suggested: it tries to
distinguish between three models of the variable controlled when
people catch balls by applying disturbances to these possible
variables to see which is least affected by the disturbance. Close,
and while they get no cigar they can certainly take a few puffs of
mine;-).
Best
Rick
···
---
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From David Goldstein (2010.01.23.21:05)]
[About Rick Marken (2010.01.23.1720)]
Rick,
Have you seen the January 2010, Volume 1, Number 1 American Psychologist? There is a lead article entitled "The Epistemology of Mathematical and Statistical Modeling: A Quiet Methodological Revolution."
The author, Joseph Lee Rodgers, advocates a modeling approach. The difference is that he doesn't distinguish the open loop verus closed loop concept, like you do.
The article on catching fly balls, shows that the modeling approach can be productive, even if one does not take a closed loop model.
David
···
----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Marken" <rsmarken@GMAIL.COM>
To: <CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: How Does an Outfielder Catch a Fly Ball?
[From Rick Marken (2010.01.23.1720)]
X-Antispam: NO; Spamcatcher 6.0.0. Score 1
Bruce Abbott (2010.01.22.2155)-
Hmm. Somehow the article at the following link seems so familiar . . .
http://www.journalofvision.org/9/13/14/Fink-2009-jov-9-13-14.pdfThe Marken paper on the same topic is cited � barely.
Well, I read the paper more carefully and it really isn't bad. Of
course, they look at catching in S-R terms; they are trying to find
the variables that "guide" output (changes in field position). But
they did do a version of the test for the controlled variable. Not a
very good version but OK. For example, they tested to see if optical
acceleration is controlled by correlating tan (alpha) (tan of optical
angle of the ball over time) with time. The idea was that if optical
acceleration is controlled, the correlation with be 1.0 and indeed the
correlation was .99. But there are much better ways to test for
controlled variables; I'd love to have their data so that I can try
some. I will write to Warren (the last author but, I believe, the lead
investigator) and see if I can get his data. I'll also suggest some
other experiments he might do. He has an amazing VR (virtual reality)
set up in his lab; I'm sure he would like to use it for all kinds of
studies of the optical variables controlled when people do all kinds
of different things besides catching baseballs.
But still the paper does just what I suggested: it tries to
distinguish between three models of the variable controlled when
people catch balls by applying disturbances to these possible
variables to see which is least affected by the disturbance. Close,
and while they get no cigar they can certainly take a few puffs of
mine;-).
Best
Rick
---
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[From Rick Marken (2010.01.23.1930)]
David Goldstein (2010.01.23.21:05)--
Rick,
Have you seen the January 2010, Volume 1, Number 1 American Psychologist?
There is a lead article entitled "The Epistemology of Mathematical and
Statistical Modeling: A Quiet Methodological Revolution."
You bet! I'm preparing to write a comment on it.
Best
Rick
···
The author, Joseph Lee Rodgers, advocates a modeling approach. The
difference is that he doesn't distinguish the open loop verus closed loop
concept, like you do.The article on catching fly balls, shows that the modeling approach can be
productive, even if one does not take a closed loop model.David
----- Original Message ----- From: "Richard Marken" <rsmarken@GMAIL.COM>
To: <CSGNET@LISTSERV.ILLINOIS.EDU>
Sent: Saturday, January 23, 2010 8:22 PM
Subject: Re: How Does an Outfielder Catch a Fly Ball?[From Rick Marken (2010.01.23.1720)]
X-Antispam: NO; Spamcatcher 6.0.0. Score 1Bruce Abbott (2010.01.22.2155)-
Hmm. Somehow the article at the following link seems so familiar . . .
http://www.journalofvision.org/9/13/14/Fink-2009-jov-9-13-14.pdfThe Marken paper on the same topic is cited � barely.
Well, I read the paper more carefully and it really isn't bad. Of
course, they look at catching in S-R terms; they are trying to find
the variables that "guide" output (changes in field position). But
they did do a version of the test for the controlled variable. Not a
very good version but OK. For example, they tested to see if optical
acceleration is controlled by correlating tan (alpha) (tan of optical
angle of the ball over time) with time. The idea was that if optical
acceleration is controlled, the correlation with be 1.0 and indeed the
correlation was .99. But there are much better ways to test for
controlled variables; I'd love to have their data so that I can try
some. I will write to Warren (the last author but, I believe, the lead
investigator) and see if I can get his data. I'll also suggest some
other experiments he might do. He has an amazing VR (virtual reality)
set up in his lab; I'm sure he would like to use it for all kinds of
studies of the optical variables controlled when people do all kinds
of different things besides catching baseballs.But still the paper does just what I suggested: it tries to
distinguish between three models of the variable controlled when
people catch balls by applying disturbances to these possible
variables to see which is least affected by the disturbance. Close,
and while they get no cigar they can certainly take a few puffs of
mine;-).Best
Rick
---
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
--
Richard S. Marken PhD
rsmarken@gmail.com
www.mindreadings.com
[Shannon Williams 2010.01.23.22.00 CST]
[From David Goldstein (2010.01.23.21:05)]
The article on catching fly balls, shows that the modeling approach can be
productive, even if one does not take a closed loop model.
Yes. And once more people start thinking in terms of 'variables that
guide the behavior', more and more people will become primed for the
PCT view. Right now they are focused on 'HOW' behavior occurs.
However, it only takes one dyslexic all-nighter spent contemplating
'WHY behavior occurs' to flip 'variables guide behavior' to 'behavior
controls variables'.
Go Rick Go! This is wonderful!
Shannon