Professional Documents
Culture Documents
task (correct, error, inserted error, and corrected The three experiments found strong dissocia- References and Notes
error) to allow typists to distinguish sources of errors tions between explicit error reports and post-error 1. P. M. A. Rabbitt, J. Exp. Psychol. 71, 264 (1966).
2. D. A. Norman, Psychol. Rev. 88, 1 (1981).
and correct responses and, therefore, provide a slowing. These dissociations are consistent with 3. C. B. Holroyd, M. G. H. Coles, Psychol. Rev. 109, 679 (2002).
stronger test of illusions of authorship. We asked 24 the hierarchical error-detection mechanism that we 4. N. Yeung, M. M. Botvinick, J. D. Cohen, Psychol. Rev.
skilled typists (WPM = 70.7 T 16.4) to type 600 proposed, with an outer loop that mediates ex- 111, 931 (2004).
words, each of which was followed by a four- plicit reports and an inner loop that mediates post- 5. W. J. Gehring, B. Goss, M. G. H. Coles, D. E. Meyer,
E. Donchin, Psychol. Sci. 4, 385 (1993).
alternative explicit report screen. Typists typed error slowing. This nested-loop description of error 6. S. Dehaene, M. I. Posner, D. M. Tucker, Psychol. Sci. 5,
91.8% of the words correctly. Mean interkeystroke detection is consistent with hierarchical models 303 (1994).
intervals, plotted in Fig. 3A, show post-error slow- of cognitive control in typewriting (9, 10, 15–17) 7. C. S. Carter et al., Science 280, 747 (1998).
ing for incorrect responses (F1,138 = 117.7, p < 0.01) and with models of hierarchical control in other 8. K. S. Lashley, in Cerebral Mechanisms in Behavior,
and corrected errors (F1,138 = 120.0, p < 0.01), but complex tasks (2, 8, 22). Speaking, playing music, L. A. Jeffress, Ed. (Wiley, New York, 1951), pp. 112–136.
9. T. A. Salthouse, Psychol. Bull. 99, 303 (1986).
not for inserted errors (F < 1.0), indicating that and navigating through space may all involve 10. G. D. Logan, M. J. C. Crump, Psychol. Sci. 20, 1296
inner-loop detection distinguishes between actual inner loops that take care of the details of per- (2009).
errors and correct responses. formance (e.g., uttering phonemes, playing notes, 11. T. I. Nielsen, Scand. J. Psychol. 4, 225 (1963).
Explicit detection probabilities, plotted in Fig. and walking) and outer loops that ensure that in- 12. M. M. Botvinick, J. D. Cohen, Nature 391, 756 (1998).
13. D. M. Wegner, The Illusion of Conscious Will (MIT Press,
3B, show good discrimination between correct tentions are fulfilled (e.g., messages communi- Cambridge, MA, 2002).
and error responses. For correct responses, typists cated, songs performed, and destinations reached). 14. G. Knoblich, T. T. J. Kircher, J. Exp. Psychol. Hum.
said “correct” more than “error” [t(23) = 97.29, Hierarchical control may be prevalent in highly Percept. Perform. 30, 657 (2004).
p < 0.01]; for error responses, typists said “error” skilled performers who have had enough practice 15. D. E. Rumelhart, D. A. Norman, Cogn. Sci. 6, 1 (1982).
16. L. H. Shaffer, Psychol. Rev. 83, 375 (1976).
more than “correct” [t(23) = 8.22, p < 0.01]. Typ- to develop an autonomous inner loop. Previous 17. X. Liu, M. J. C. Crump, G. D. Logan, Mem. Cognit. 38,
ists distinguished actual errors from inserted errors studies of error detection in simple tasks may 474 (2010).
well, avoiding an illusion of authorship. They describe inner-loop processing. The novel con- 18. A. M. Gordon, J. F. Soechting, Exp. Brain Res. 107,
Table 1. Correlations among group tasks and descriptive statistics for Study 1. n = 40 groups; *P ≤
0.05; **P ≤ 0.001.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1 Collective intelligence (c)
2 Brainstorming 0.38*
3 Group matrix reasoning 0.86** 0.30*
4 Group moral reasoning 0.42* 0.12 0.27 Fig. 1. Standardized regression coefficients for
5 Plan shopping trip 0.66** 0.21 0.38* 0.18 collective intelligence (c) and average individual
6 Group typing 0.80** 0.13 0.50** 0.25* 0.43* member intelligence when both are regressed to-
7 Avg member intelligence 0.19 0.11 0.19 0.12 –0.06 0.22 gether on criterion task performance in Studies
8 Max member intelligence 0.27 0.09 0.33* 0.05 –0.04 0.28 0.73** 1 and 2 (controlling for group size in Study 2).
9 Video game 0.52* 0.17 0.38* 0.37* 0.39* 0.44* 0.18 0.13 Coefficient for maximum member intelligence is
Minimum –2.67 9 2 32 –10.80 148 4.00 8.00 26 also shown for comparison, calculated in a separate
Maximum 1.56 55 17 81 82.40 1169 12.67 15.67 96
regression because it is too highly correlated with
individual member intelligence to incorporate both
Mean 0 28.33 11.05 57.35 46.92 596.13 8.92 11.67 61.80
in a single analysis (r = 0.73 and 0.62 in Studies
SD 1.00 11.36 3.02 10.96 19.64 263.74 1.82 1.69 17.56
1 and 2, respectively). Error bars, mean T SE.
Meeting of Minds
The performance of humans across a range of different kinds of cognitive tasks has been encapsulated as a
common statistical factor called g or general intelligence factor. What intelligence actually is, is unclear and hotly
debated, yet there is a reproducible association of g with performance outcomes, such as income and academic
achievement. Woolley et al. (p. 686, published online 30 September) report a psychometric methodology for quantifying
a factor termed ''collective intelligence'' ( c), which reflects how well groups perform on a similarly diverse set of group
SUPPLEMENTARY http://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2010/09/29/science.1193147.DC1
MATERIALS
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2010/09/30/science.1193147.DC2
REFERENCES This article cites 10 articles, 1 of which you can access for free
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/330/6004/686#BIBL
PERMISSIONS http://www.sciencemag.org/help/reprints-and-permissions
Science (print ISSN 0036-8075; online ISSN 1095-9203) is published by the American Association for the Advancement of
Science, 1200 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20005. 2017 © The Authors, some rights reserved; exclusive
licensee American Association for the Advancement of Science. No claim to original U.S. Government Works. The title
Science is a registered trademark of AAAS.