Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
Margin of Error01:27

Margin of Error

The margin of error is also called the maximum error of an estimate. The margin of error is the maximum possible or expected difference between the observed sample parameter value and the actual population parameter value. For proportion, it is the maximum difference between the value of sample proportion obtained from the data and the true value of population proportion. As the true value of the population parameter is not known, the margin of error is calculated using the sample statistic.
Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test01:00

Detection of Gross Error: The Q Test

When one or more data points appear far from the rest of the data, there is a need to determine whether they are outliers and whether they should be eliminated from the data set to ensure an accurate representation of the measured value. In many cases, outliers arise from gross errors (or human errors) and do not accurately reflect the underlying phenomenon. In some cases, however, these apparent outliers reflect true phenomenological differences. In these cases, we can use statistical methods...
Difference from Background: Limit of Detection01:05

Difference from Background: Limit of Detection

The limit of detection (LOD) is the smallest amount of analyte that can be distinguished from the background noise. The LOD value corresponds to the concentration at which the analyte signal is three times larger than the standard deviation of the blank signal. Below this value, the analyte signal cannot be differentiated from the background noise. It is calculated by dividing the calibration slope by 3 times the standard deviation of the blank signals.
The LOD indicates the presence or absence...
Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
Common Leveling Mistakes and Errors01:17

Common Leveling Mistakes and Errors

A survey team is tasked with determining the elevation difference between points Point A and Point B, separated by uneven terrain. They use a leveling instrument and a leveling rod.Common MistakesMisreading the Rod: During a backsight reading at Point A, the instrumentman observes the rod partially obscured by tall grass. Instead of reading 1.135 m, they mistakenly record 1.735 m due to the misalignment of the crosshair with the wrong graduation. This error adds 0.600 m to all subsequent...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Saccade-synchronized alpha rhythms predict strength of memory trace of stimulus orientation.

BMC biology·2026
Same author

Human vision maintains a rich representation of objects moving behind an occluder.

Current biology : CB·2026
Same author

Adaptation acts directly on the sensory representation of numerosity.

Scientific reports·2026
Same author

Serial dependence in face-gender classification revealed in low-beta frequency EEG.

BMC biology·2025
Same author

Recent, but not long-term, priors induce behavioral oscillations in peri-saccadic vision.

Communications psychology·2025
Same author

Pupillometric signature of implicit learning of statistical regularities.

Current biology : CB·2025
Same journal

The human claustrum supports cognitive networks for externally and internally driven task demands.

PLoS biology·2026
Same journal

Unusual decay: Recombination loss leads to splicing errors in green algae.

PLoS biology·2026
Same journal

Angptl5 restricts primitive hematopoiesis by promoting retinoic acid signaling in zebrafish.

PLoS biology·2026
Same journal

Engineered bipaternal mice reveal the consequences of life without a maternal genomic contribution.

PLoS biology·2026
Same journal

Multiple adhesion molecules act together in oligodendrocyte-mediated axonal selection and myelin formation.

PLoS biology·2026
Same journal

Splicing deficiency is driven by genomic erosion in non-recombining algal mating-type chromosomes.

PLoS biology·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 19, 2026

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments
13:00

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments

Published on: January 23, 2017

Visual clutter causes high-magnitude errors.

Stefano Baldassi1, Nicola Megna, David C Burr

  • 1Dipartimento di Psicologia, Università di Firenze, Florence, Italy.

Plos Biology
|February 24, 2006
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Perceptual clutter increases judgment errors and decision confidence, even when decisions are wrong. This suggests that in complex environments, confidence in incorrect perceptual decisions may rise.

More Related Videos

Measuring the Behavioral Effects of Intraocular Scatter
05:10

Measuring the Behavioral Effects of Intraocular Scatter

Published on: February 18, 2021

A Gaze-Contingent Display Framework for Perceptual Learning Research with Simulated Central Vision Loss
07:12

A Gaze-Contingent Display Framework for Perceptual Learning Research with Simulated Central Vision Loss

Published on: April 11, 2025

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 19, 2026

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments
13:00

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments

Published on: January 23, 2017

Measuring the Behavioral Effects of Intraocular Scatter
05:10

Measuring the Behavioral Effects of Intraocular Scatter

Published on: February 18, 2021

A Gaze-Contingent Display Framework for Perceptual Learning Research with Simulated Central Vision Loss
07:12

A Gaze-Contingent Display Framework for Perceptual Learning Research with Simulated Central Vision Loss

Published on: April 11, 2025

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Neuroscience
  • Visual Perception

Background:

  • Perceptual decisions are frequently made in cluttered environments with distractors.
  • Distractors are known to affect performance, but their impact on decision quality is less understood.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate how perceptual clutter influences the quality of perceptual decisions.
  • To examine the relationship between distractors, judgment errors, and decision confidence.

Main Methods:

  • Observers reported target grating orientation (direction and magnitude) presented alone or with distractors.
  • A computational model based on nonlinear combination of detector outputs was used to explain results.

Main Results:

  • Perceptual clutter increased both judgment errors and confidence in erroneous decisions.
  • In clutter, erroneous trials showed increased perceived signal strength and high confidence.
  • Isolated targets on error trials were perceived with low tilt and low confidence.

Conclusions:

  • Perceptual decisions in cluttered environments can be erroneous yet highly confident.
  • Internal stimulus representation likely involves nonlinear combinations of noisy sensory inputs.
  • Findings have implications for understanding decision-making in complex real-world scenarios.