Second, we examined the numbers of outcome evaluation errors for each participant (i.e., Action-no/Report-yes errors, and Action-yes/Report-no errors).
It should be recognized that the increase in Action-no/Report-yes errors seen in patients is at least partly a consequence of the group difference in omission errors.
Finally, we examined whether the significant group differences for numbers of omission and Action-no/Report-yes errors remained after taking into account measures of IQ and digit span (from Table 1) using analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs).
Concerning Action-no/Report-yes errors, namely, reporting that a PM response had been made (i.e., counter turned over) after an omission error (i.e., the counter was not turned over), patients were significantly more likely to make such errors than controls, F 1, 38) = 4.27, p < 0.05.
In contrast, the group effect for Action-no/Report-yes evaluation errors, whereby patients more often than controls reported that they turned the counter when they did not, was removed by covarying either current IQ or backward digit span.
In contrast, for Action-no/Report-yes evaluation errors, the significant group effect disappeared when either backward digit span or WAIS-R was included as a covariate (p >.1 for the group effects in both cases), but not when forward digit span or WRAT-R was included as a covariate (p <.05 and p =.05 for the group effects, respectively).
The preset parameters were as follows: minimum contig length = 200, similarity = 0.8, length fraction = 0.5, insertion cost = 3, deletion cost = 3, mismatch cost = 2, color space elignment = yes, color error cost = 3.
Instead, it was largely a series of avoidable — yes, avoidable — human errors.
Many is the time I myself have been set straight by a friendly commenter pointing out a grammatical or factual error (yes, I).
