Sintaxis del discurso en Dt 4, 1-40

Dt 4, 1-40 it a Biblical text particularly relevant, both for its location and sense within the Deuteronomy book, as well as for its relation with the overall Deuteronomist literature. However, we do not handle in-depth and extensive studies of this text, with exception of the works published by G. Braulik516, D. Knapp517 and K. Holter518, and other exploratory studies much thoroughly investigated, as well as small monographic ones specified in a particular matter. On the other hand, the investigation of the text has been focused mainly around the historical and theological analysis of it, with the purpose to determine the time in which the text was introduced in the total of the book, as well as to weight the significance of the different stratum of the text, its sources... For this reason, other medium of approach to the text has been left aside, or had been used only as instruments to be served to the main purpose of this study. This has been for instance the study of the literary analysis. Nevertheless, during these last years, the literary investigation of the biblical texts (linguistics, narrative, rhetoric, comparative literature...) has gained boom, and had allowed a great appreciation of these texts, overall its historical or theological relevance. Dt 4, 1-40 has been benefit from all of it. The studies dedicated to the literary analysis of Dt 4, 1-40 show considerable patterns on the ways they had been carried. We have analysed them from the syntax and narrative points of view, fields very little investigated up to now. We believe it is necessary to study the text from these two perspectives to appreciate the wealth of this literary composition beyond the topics covered on it, and to contribute this way to a deep investigation of such a significant text in shape and content for the present Biblical Philology. The final objective of our study it is to arrive to a full comprehension of the thematic and literary unity of the text through its syntactic and narrative analysis, and, at the same time, to determine the mutual and necessary relationship that exist between one to another in this line of investigation...

On the discrepant results in synchrony judgment and temporal-order judgment tasks: a quantitative model.

Research on the perception of temporal order uses either temporal-order judgment (TOJ) tasks or synchrony judgment (SJ) tasks, in both of which two stimuli are presented with some temporal delay and observers must judge the order of presentation. Results generally differ across tasks, raising concerns about whether they measure the same processes. We present a model including sensory and decisional parameters that places these tasks in a common framework that allows studying their implications on observed performance. TOJ tasks imply specific decisional components that explain the discrepancy of results obtained with TOJ and SJ tasks. The model is also tested against published data on audiovisual temporal-order judgments, and the fit is satisfactory, although model parameters are more accurately estimated with SJ tasks. Measures of latent point of subjective simultaneity and latent sensitivity are defined that are invariant across tasks by isolating the sensory parameters governing observed performance, whereas decisional parameters vary across tasks and account for observed differences across them. Our analyses concur with other evidence advising against the use of TOJ tasks in research on perception of temporal order.

Reminder and 2AFC tasks provide similar estimates of the difference limen: a reanalysis of data from Lapid, Ulrich, and Rammsayer (2008) and a discussion of Ulrich and Vorberg (2009)

Lapid, Ulrich, and Rammsayer (2008) reported that estimates of the difference limen (DL) from a two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) task are higher than those obtained from a reminder task. This article reanalyzes their data in order to correct an error in their estimates of the DL from 2AFC data. We also extend the psychometric functions fitted to data from both tasks to incorporate an extra parameter that has been shown to allow obtaining accurate estimates of the DL that are unaffected by lapses. Contrary to Lapid et al.'s conclusion, our reanalysis shows that DLs estimated with the 2AFC task are only minimally (and not always significantly) larger than those estimated with the reminder task. We also show that their data are contaminated by response bias, and that the small remaining difference between DLs estimated with 2AFC and reminder tasks can be reasonably attributed to the differential effects that response bias has in either task as they were defined in Lapid et al.'s experiments. Finally, we discuss a novel approach presented by Ulrich and Vorberg (2009) for fitting psychometric functions to 2AFC discrimination data.

Correction to “Reminder and 2AFC tasks provide similar estimates of the difference limen: A reanalysis of data from Lapid, Ulrich, and Rammsayer (2008) and a discussion of Ulrich and Vorberg (2009)”

We recently published an article (García-Pérez & Alcalá- Quintana, 2010) reanalyzing data presented by Lapid, Ulrich, and Rammsayer (2008) and discussing a theoretical argument developed by Ulrich and Vorberg (2009). The purpose of this note is to correct an error in our study that has some theoretical importance, although it does not affect the conclusion that was raised. The error lies in that asymptote parameters reflecting lapses or finger errors should not enter the constraint relating the psychometric functions that describe performance when the comparison stimulus in a two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) discrimination task is presented in the first or second interval.