Correcting the errors: Volatility forecast evaluation using high-frequency data and realized volatilities

We develop general model-free adjustment procedures for the calculation of unbiased volatility loss functions based on practically feasible realized volatility benchmarks. The procedures, which exploit recent nonparametric asymptotic distributional results, are both easy-to-implement and highly accurate in empirically realistic situations. We also illustrate that properly accounting for the measurement errors in the volatility forecast evaluations reported in the existing literature can result in markedly higher estimates for the true degree of return volatility predictability.

H.M.'s personal crossword puzzles: understanding memory and language.

The amnesic patient H.M. has been solving crossword puzzles nearly all his life. Here, we analysed the linguistic content of 277 of H.M.'s crossword-puzzle solutions. H.M. did not have any unusual difficulties with the orthographic and grammatical components inherent to the puzzles. He exhibited few spelling errors, responded with appropriate parts of speech, and provided answers that were, at times, more convincing to observers than those supplied by the answer keys. These results suggest that H.M.'s lexical word-retrieval skills remain fluid despite his profound anterograde amnesia. Once acquired, the maintenance of written language comprehension and production does not seem to require intact medial temporal lobe structures.

Optimizing the Correction of Memory Errors

People are always at risk of making errors when they attempt to retrieve information from memory. An important question is how to create the optimal learning conditions so that, over time, the correct information is learned and the number of mistakes declines. Feedback is a powerful tool, both for reinforcing new learning and correcting memory errors. In 5 experiments, I sought to understand the best procedures for administering feedback during learning. First, I evaluated the popular recommendation that feedback is most effective when given immediately, and I showed that this recommendation does not always hold when correcting errors made with educational materials in the classroom. Second, I asked whether immediate feedback is more effective in a particular case—when correcting false memories, or strongly-held errors that may be difficult to notice even when the learner is confronted with the feedback message. Third, I examined whether varying levels of learner motivation might help to explain cross-experimental variability in feedback timing effects: Are unmotivated learners less likely to benefit from corrective feedback, especially when it is administered at a delay? Overall, the results revealed that there is no best “one-size-fits-all” recommendation for administering feedback; the optimal procedure depends on various characteristics of learners and their errors. As a package, the data are consistent with the spacing hypothesis of feedback timing, although this theoretical account does not successfully explain all of the data in the larger literature.

New evidence in trauma resuscitation - is 1:1:1 the answer?

Traumatic injury is a common problem, with over five million worldwide deaths from trauma per year. An estimated 10 to 20% of these deaths are potentially preventable with better control of bleeding. Damage control resuscitation involves early delivery of plasma and platelets as a primary resuscitation approach to minimize trauma-induced coagulopathy. Plasma, red blood cell and platelet ratios of 1:1:1 appear to be the best substitution for fresh whole blood; however, the current literature consists only of survivor bias-prone observational studies.