Unidirectional rating scales overestimate the illusory causation phenomenon.

Illusory causation is a phenomenon in which people mistakenly perceive a causal relationship between a cue and outcome even though the contingency between them is actually zero. Illusory causation studies typically use a unidirectional causal rating scale, where one endpoint refers to no relationship and the other to a strongly positive causal relationship. This procedure may bias mean causal ratings in a positive direction, either by censoring negative ratings or by discouraging participants from giving the normative rating of zero which is at the bottom extreme of the scale. To test this possibility, we ran two experiments that directly compared the magnitude of causal illusions when assessed with a unidirectional (zero-positive) versus a bidirectional (negative-zero-positive) rating scale. Experiment 1 used high cue and outcome densities (both 75%), whereas Experiment 2 used neutral cue and outcome densities (both 50%). Across both experiments, we observed a larger illusory causation effect in the unidirectional group compared with the bidirectional group, despite both groups experiencing the same training trials. The causal illusions in Experiment 2 were observed despite participants accurately learning the conditional probabilities of the outcome occurring in both the presence and absence of the cue, suggesting that the illusion is driven by the inability to accurately integrate conditional probabilities to infer causal relationships. Our results indicate that although illusory causation is a genuine phenomenon that is observable with either a undirectional or a bidirectional rating scale, its magnitude may be overestimated when unidirectional rating scales are used.

Generalization following symmetrical intradimensional discrimination training.

A challenge for generalization models is to specify how excitation generated from a CS+ (i.e., positive evidence) should interact with inhibition from a CS- (i.e., negative evidence) to produce generalized responding. Empirically, many generalization phenomena are consistent with the monotonicity principle, which states that additional positive evidence should increase generalized responding, whereas additional negative evidence should decrease responding. However, a recent study (Lee et al.,, 2019) demonstrated that additional negative evidence can sometimes increase generalization, in direct contrast to animal data and associative accounts of generalization. The current study investigated whether a similar effect could be found in a symmetrical intradimensional discrimination procedure with two sources of negative evidence (CS-s) located on each side of a CS+. In three experiments, we compared generalization along a green-blue dimension between one group of participants who learned that an aqua-colored shape (CS+) predicted an outcome (Single Positive group) with another group who also learned that both a slightly greener and a slightly bluer shape led to no outcome (Double Negative group). Experiments 1A and 1B showed no effect of the additional negative evidence in increasing generalization around the CS+. However, changing a stimulus feature at test (shape) resulted in a higher gradient peak in the Double Negative group relative to the Single Positive group in Experiment 2. Although this result violates the monotonicity principle, an extended version of Blough's (1975) model applying cue competition to multiple stimulus dimensions (i.e., shape and color) successfully replicated the group differences. Our results suggest that associative mechanisms can account for some instances in which negative evidence increases generalization. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Anaplastic supratentorial cortical ependymoma presenting as a butterfly lesion.

BACKGROUND: Anaplastic cortical ependymomas are rare lesions with few cases reported in the literature. CASE DESCRIPTION: We present a unique case of an anaplastic cortical ependymoma in a 51-year-old female presenting as a butterfly lesion with involvement of both frontal lobes. The patient underwent gross total resection of her tumor with further adjuvant treatment. We present the findings in our case and review the literature surrounding supratentorial ependymomas and their treatment outcomes. CONCLUSION: Rarely, cortical ependymoma can present as a butterfly lesion and should be considered in the differential diagnosis of such lesions in adults.