Many students persistently misinterpret histograms. This calls for closer inspection of students’ strategies when interpreting histograms and case-value plots (which look similar but are diferent). Using students’ gaze data, we ask: How and how well do upper secondary pre-university school students estimate and compare arithmetic means of histograms and case-value plots? We designed four item types: two requiring mean estimation and two requiring means comparison. Analysis of gaze data of 50 students (15–19 years old) solving these items was triangulated with data from cued recall. We found five strategies. Two hypothesized most common strategies for estimating means were confirmed: a strategy associated with horizontal gazes and a strategy associated with vertical gazes. A third, new, count-and-compute strategy was found. Two more strategies emerged for comparing means that take specific features of the distribution into account. In about half of the histogram tasks, students used correct strategies. Surprisingly, when comparing two case-value plots, some students used distribution features that are only relevant for histograms, such as symmetry. As several incorrect strategies related to how and where the data and the distribution of these data are depicted in histograms, future interventions should aim at supporting students in understanding these concepts in histograms. A methodological advantage of eye-tracking data collection is that it reveals more details about students’ problem-solving processes than thinking-aloud protocols. We speculate that spatial gaze data can be re-used to substantiate ideas about the sensorimotor origin of learning mathematics.
LINK
The main objective of the study is to determine if non-specific physical symptoms (NSPS) in people with self-declared sensitivity to radiofrequency electromagnetic fields (RF EMF) can be explained (across subjects) by exposure to RF EMF. Furthermore, we pioneered whether analysis at the individual level or at the group level may lead to different conclusions. By our knowledge, this is the first longitudinal study exploring the data at the individual level. A group of 57 participants was equipped with a measurement set for five consecutive days. The measurement set consisted of a body worn exposimeter measuring the radiofrequency electromagnetic field in twelve frequency bands used for communication, a GPS logger, and an electronic diary giving cues at random intervals within a two to three hour interval. At every cue, a questionnaire on the most important health complaint and nine NSPS had to be filled out. We analysed the (time-lagged) associations between RF-EMF exposure in the included frequency bands and the total number of NSPS and self-rated severity of the most important health complaint. The manifestation of NSPS was studied during two different time lags - 0–1 h, and 1–4 h - after exposure and for different exposure metrics of RF EMF. The exposure was characterised by exposure metrics describing the central tendency and the intermittency of the signal, i.e. the time-weighted average exposure, the time above an exposure level or the rate of change metric. At group level, there was no statistically significant and relevant (fixed effect) association between the measured personal exposure to RF EMF and NSPS. At individual level, after correction for multiple testing and confounding, we found significant within-person associations between WiFi (the self-declared most important source) exposure metrics and the total NSPS score and severity of the most important complaint in one participant. However, it cannot be ruled out that this association is explained by residual confounding due to imperfect control for location or activities. Therefore, the outcomes have to be regarded very prudently. The significant associations were found for the short and the long time lag, but not always concurrently, so both provide complementary information. We also conclude that analyses at the individual level can lead to different findings when compared to an analysis at group level. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envint.2019.104948 LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/john-bolte-0856134/
MULTIFILE
Introduction Negative pain-related cognitions are associated with persistence of low-back pain (LBP), but the mechanism underlying this association is not well understood. We propose that negative pain-related cognitions determine how threatening a motor task will be perceived, which in turn will affect how lumbar movements are performed, possibly with negative long-term effects on pain. Objective To assess the effect of postural threat on lumbar movement patterns in people with and without LBP, and to investigate whether this effect is associated with task-specific pain-related cognitions. Methods 30 back-healthy participants and 30 participants with LBP performed consecutive two trials of a seated repetitive reaching movement (45 times). During the first trial participants were threatened with mechanical perturbations, during the second trial participants were informed that the trial would be unperturbed. Movement patterns were characterized by temporal variability (CyclSD), local dynamic stability (LDE) and spatial variability (meanSD) of the relative lumbar Euler angles. Pain-related cognition was assessed with the task-specific ‘Expected Back Strain’-scale (EBS). A three-way mixed Manova was used to assess the effect of Threat, Group (LBP vs control) and EBS (above vs below median) on lumbar movement patterns. Results We found a main effect of threat on lumbar movement patterns. In the threat-condition, participants showed increased variability (MeanSDflexion-extension, p<0.000, η2 = 0.26; CyclSD, p = 0.003, η2 = 0.14) and decreased stability (LDE, p = 0.004, η2 = 0.14), indicating large effects of postural threat. Conclusion Postural threat increased variability and decreased stability of lumbar movements, regardless of group or EBS. These results suggest that perceived postural threat may underlie changes in motor behavior in patients with LBP. Since LBP is likely to impose such a threat, this could be a driver of changes in motor behavior in patients with LBP, as also supported by the higher spatial variability in the group with LBP and higher EBS in the reference condition.
LINK
