Section 6 introduces a different type of experiment that allows us to obtain an estimate of the distribution of errors on participants' representation of landmark location (rather than their own location).
Results: Mean-line length errors of participants 1, 2, and 3 were: horizontal line tracing, 3.33, 7.38, and.30 inches, respectively, in the baseline and 1.41, 2.70, and.24 inches, respectively, after mental practice training.
We calculated means (standard errors) and percentages (standard errors) of participant characteristics by quartile of LTL.
The study by Perkins et al. (2004) examined reliability of the MM3B but used repeated measurements on human participants, which inflates the variability as it combines the relatively large biological error of the participants and the smaller technical error of the machine [their contributions to the total variability has been estimated to be 90% and 10% respectively (Macfarlane 2001)].
In fact, these findings matched the results of the biggest survey on medical errors (number of participants = 3'171), in which female physicians were almost twice as likely to report stress after an error [ 9].
One or more of these heuristic biases occurred in approximately half of the diagnostic errors detected in this study, suggesting they are a potentially important source of error for participants using our training systems.
In Test 1, without any mask, the error of the participant was about 0.045 rad/s.
In addition, the standard error of each participant's LI was used to compute a 95% confidence interval to determine if it differed significantly from zero.
This was done to estimate the contribution of refractive error to participants' visual impairment.
Standard deviations in Mulleners et al. [36] were calculated from standard error and number of participants in each group (standard error × √number of participants).
