Search research articles

ABOUT JoVE

Overview Leadership Blog JoVE Help Center

AUTHORS

Publishing Process Editorial Board Scope & Policies Peer Review FAQ Submit

LIBRARIANS

Testimonials Subscriptions Access Resources Library Advisory Board FAQ

RESEARCH

JoVE Journal Methods Collections JoVE Encyclopedia of Experiments Archive

EDUCATION

JoVE Core JoVE Business JoVE Science Education JoVE Lab Manual Faculty Resource Center Faculty Site

Terms & Conditions of Use

Related Concept Videos

The Uncertainty Principle

The Uncertainty Principle

Werner Heisenberg considered the limits of how accurately one can measure properties of an electron or other microscopic particles. He determined that there is a fundamental limit to how accurately one can measure both a particle’s position and its momentum simultaneously. The more accurate the measurement of the momentum of a particle is known, the less accurate the position at that time is known and vice versa. This is what is now called the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. He...

Causality in Epidemiology

Causality in Epidemiology

Causality or causation is a fundamental concept in epidemiology, vital for understanding the relationships between various factors and health outcomes. Despite its importance, there's no single, universally accepted definition of causality within the discipline. Drawing from a systematic review, causality in epidemiology encompasses several definitions, including production, necessary and sufficient, sufficient-component, counterfactual, and probabilistic models. Each has its strengths and...

Uncertainty in Measurement: Reading Instruments

Uncertainty in Measurement: Reading Instruments

Counting is the type of measurement that is free from uncertainty, provided the number of objects being counted does not change during the process. Such measurements result in exact numbers. By counting the eggs in a carton, for instance, one can determine exactly how many eggs are there in the carton. Similarly, the numbers of defined quantities are also exact. For example, 1 foot is exactly 12 inches, 1 inch is exactly 2.54 centimeters, and 1 gram is exactly 0.001 kilograms. Quantities...

Uncertainty: Overview

Uncertainty: Overview

In analytical chemistry, we often perform repetitive measurements to detect and minimize inaccuracies caused by both determinate and indeterminate errors. Despite the cares we take, the presence of random errors means that repeated measurements almost never have exactly the same magnitude. The collective difference between these measurements - observed values - and the estimated or expected value is called uncertainty. Uncertainty is conventionally written after the estimated or expected value.

Uncertainty in Measurement: Significant Figures

Uncertainty in Measurement: Significant Figures

All the digits in a measurement, including the uncertain last digit, are called significant figures or significant digits. Note that zero may be a measured value; for example, if a scale that shows weight to the nearest pound reads “140,” then the 1 (hundreds), 4 (tens), and 0 (ones) are all significant (measured) values.

Uncertainty: Confidence Intervals

Uncertainty: Confidence Intervals

The confidence interval is the range of values around the mean that contains the true mean. It is expressed as a probability percentage. The interpretation of a 95% confidence interval, for instance, is that the statistician is 95% confident that the true mean falls within the interval. The upper and lower limits of this range are known as confidence limits. The confidence limits for the true mean are estimated from the sample's mean, the standard deviation, and the statistical factor...

You might also read

Related Articles

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

Sort by

Same author

Action slips in food choices: A measure of habits and goal-directed control.

Learning & behavior·2023

Same author

Hydrocephalus: A neuropsychological and theoretical primer.

Cortex; a journal devoted to the study of the nervous system and behavior·2023

Same author

Pre-testing effects are target-specific and are not driven by a generalised state of curiosity.

Memory (Hove, England)·2022

Same author

Theory protection: Do humans protect existing associative links?

Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition·2022

Same author

Toward High Selectivity Aniline Synthesis Catalysis at Elevated Temperatures.

Industrial & engineering chemistry research·2022

Same author

Pretesting boosts item but not source memory.

Memory (Hove, England)·2021

Same journal

Time does the teaching.

Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition·2026

Same journal

Language learning in canines and toddlers: Shared origins?

Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition·2026

Same journal

The role of outcome affective value in driving human Pavlovian learning.

Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition·2026

Same journal

Crashing the tea party: Imagining alternative explanations.

Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition·2026

Same journal

Static outcomes: Anodal transcranial direct current stimulation at Fp3 or P3 does not modulate perceptual learning as indexed by the intermixed-blocked effect.

Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition·2026

Same journal

A method for visual psychophysics based on the navigational behavior of desert ants (Melophorus bagoti).

Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition·2026

See all related articles

Search research articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jan 31, 2026

Experimental Research Examining How People Can Cope with Uncertainty Through Soft Haptic Sensations

Experimental Research Examining How People Can Cope with Uncertainty Through Soft Haptic Sensations

Published on: September 16, 2015

Uncertainty and blocking in human causal learning.

Peter M Jones¹, Tara Zaksaite¹, Chris J Mitchell¹

¹School of Psychology.

Journal of Experimental Psychology. Animal Learning and Cognition

|January 4, 2019

Summary

This summary is machine-generated.

The blocking phenomenon in learning occurs when a previously learned cue prevents new learning. This study shows that uncertainty about a blocked cue influences how people judge its causal role, supporting an inferential explanation.

More Related Videos

An Objective and Reproducible Test of Olfactory Learning and Discrimination in Mice

An Objective and Reproducible Test of Olfactory Learning and Discrimination in Mice

Published on: March 22, 2018

Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements

Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements

Published on: September 7, 2019

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jan 31, 2026

Experimental Research Examining How People Can Cope with Uncertainty Through Soft Haptic Sensations

Experimental Research Examining How People Can Cope with Uncertainty Through Soft Haptic Sensations

Published on: September 16, 2015

An Objective and Reproducible Test of Olfactory Learning and Discrimination in Mice

An Objective and Reproducible Test of Olfactory Learning and Discrimination in Mice

Published on: March 22, 2018

Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements

Split Point Analysis and Uncertainty Quantification of Thermal-Optical Organic/Elemental Carbon Measurements

Published on: September 7, 2019

Area of Science:

Cognitive Psychology
Learning and Memory

Background:

The blocking phenomenon is a persistent challenge in understanding learning processes.
Existing explanations include associative and inferential accounts.

Purpose of the Study:

To investigate the role of uncertainty in the blocking phenomenon.
To test whether an inferential explanation better accounts for blocking than an associative one.

Main Methods:

Three experiments were conducted, including overshadowing and uncorrelated controls.
Outcome base rates were manipulated to assess their effect on cue ratings.
A direct self-report measure assessed participant certainty regarding blocked cues.

Main Results:

Participant ratings of blocked cues were sensitive to outcome base rates, indicating uncertainty.
This sensitivity supports the idea that participants infer causality based on information, not just association.
Experiment 3 confirmed participant uncertainty about blocked cues.

Conclusions:

The findings align with an inferential explanation of the blocking phenomenon.
Uncertainty about a cue's causal status is a key factor in blocking.
The results pose challenges for purely associative accounts of learning.