Reader Comments
Post a new comment on this article
Post Your Discussion Comment
Please follow our guidelines for comments and review our competing interests policy. Comments that do not conform to our guidelines will be promptly removed and the user account disabled. The following must be avoided:
- Remarks that could be interpreted as allegations of misconduct
- Unsupported assertions or statements
- Inflammatory or insulting language
Thank You!
Thank you for taking the time to flag this posting; we review flagged postings on a regular basis.
closeBase rates of substituting a word by itself, a nearly identical string, or another valid word
Posted by Potsdam_EM_Group on 28 Sep 2007 at 22:11 GMT
Many letters could only be substituted by themselves and all other letters were in some cases substituted by themselves. As a consequence, many words may not have changed at all or only slightly rendering identification easier than in cases with multiple substitutions. Therefore, can the authors tell the percentage of words that were replaced by themselves or very similar strings? Moreover, some substitutions will have resulted in the creation of new valid words (e.g., arc <-> are, bill <-> hill, if <-> it; end <-> and). These cases may have encouraged readers to give incorrect responses. How often did such cases occur?
RE: Base rates of substituting a word by itself, a nearly identical string, or another valid word
DenisPelli replied to Potsdam_EM_Group on 26 Oct 2007 at 17:03 GMT
In a 583-word sample of text used in the experiments with the L knockout applied, 28% of the words did not change, and 3% were cases where substitution resulted in valid (but incorrect) words.
Denis Pelli & Katharine Tillman
http://psych.nyu.edu/pell...