Correction to “Reply to Elliott and Rowland”

Reply to Comment by Briere and Elliott

M. R. Nash, T. L. Hulsey, M. C. Sexton, T. L. Harralson, and W Lambert respond to J. Briere and D. M. Elliott's (1993, this issue) comments regarding their study (1993, this issue). The investigation was in no way designed or presented as a causal analysis; covariance analysis is an acceptable means of identifying and controlling for important mediating variables. The authors cite some methodol...

Intermittent versus continuous visual control: a reply to Elliott.

Recently, Elliott (1986) has reported data that he claims are inconsistent with my hypothesis that a short-term motor memory system exists for guiding locomotion and other actions in space (Thomson, 1983). In fact, methodological flaws in Elliott's design make such conclusions unjustified and inappropriate. Moreover, insofar as comparisons can be made at all, the results are completely consiste...

Correction to Figures: A Reply to Hwang and Peli (2014)

In Hwang and Peli (2014), few errors occurred in computing the angular disparities. The direction of peripheral depth distortion (the angular disparity differences between what it is in real-world 3D viewing and S3D viewing) is reversed when the computational errors were corrected, making the perception of the peripheral depth to be expanded, not compressed. This reply points to the error and p...

Correction to "Author's reply to Tovey and colleagues".

Research Ethics Boards: Reply from Trudo Lemmens and Carl Elliott

Joal Hill I read with interest the debate about for-profi t versus non-profi t institutional review boards (IRBs) [1], but was disappointed that no one addressed the ability (or inability) of for-profi t IRBs to review studies with the local context of research subjects in mind and then monitor what actually occurs during the consent process throughout the research trial. To my mind the “bignes...