Taking Uncertainty Seriously: From Permissive Regulation to Preventative Design in Environmental Decision Making

This paper contrasts two paradigms of environmental regulatory decision making, permissive regulation and preventative design, with respect to their treatment of scientific and legal uncertainty and the allocation of legal standards and burdens of proof. Permissive regulation, which is the predominant approach in Canada, suffers two types of statistical errors. A type I error occurs when, for example, a pollution control device is unjustly imposed on an industry. A type II error occurs when no action is taken to control an industry when, in fact, damage is taking place. Concern to prevent type I errors often leads to type II errors. Attempts to resolve these problems through incremental changes in legislation and policy have generally failed. This article illustrates the scientific and regulatory problems associated with \u27permissive regulation through an analysis of environmental common law, legislation, and regulation. Protection of environmental quality requires regulatory decision making rooted in the principles of precautionary, preventative action that tends to minimize costly type II errors. With the preventative design approach now being used in several jurisdictions, the regulatory burden of proving harm is shifted from regulators to the polluters who must demonstrate safety. European and American initiatives as well as international agreements illustrate the historical development and implementation of this preventative design perspective. This article suggests that Canadian legislation and regulations be written with this approach

A multicentre, randomised controlled trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus standard NHS Speech and Language Therapy versus control in Parkinson’s disease: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Abstract: Background: Parkinson’s disease (PD) affects approximately 145,519 people in the UK. Speech impairments are common with a reported prevalence of 68%, which increase physical and mental demands during conversation, reliance on family and/or carers, and the likelihood of social withdrawal reducing quality of life. In the UK, two approaches to Speech and Language Therapy (SLT) intervention are commonly available: National Health Service (NHS) SLT or Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®). NHS SLT is tailored to the individuals’ needs per local practice typically consisting of six to eight weekly sessions; LSVT LOUD® comprises 16 sessions of individual treatment with home-based practice over 4 weeks. The evidence-base for their effectiveness is inconclusive. Methods/design: PD COMM is a phase III, multicentre, three-arm, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. Five hundred and forty-six people with idiopathic PD, reporting speech or voice problems will be enrolled. We will exclude those with a diagnosis of dementia, laryngeal pathology or those who have received SLT for speech problems in the previous 2 years. Following informed consent and completion of baseline assessments, participants will be randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to no-intervention control, NHS SLT or LSVT LOUD® via a central computer-generated programme, using a minimisation procedure with a random element, to ensure allocation concealment. Participants randomised to the intervention groups will start treatment within 4 (NHS SLT) or 7 (LSVT LOUD®) weeks of randomisation. Primary outcome: Voice Handicap Index (VHI) total score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include: VHI subscales, Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39; Questionnaire on Acquired Speech Disorders; EuroQol-5D-5 L; ICECAP-O; resource utilisation; adverse events and carer quality of life. Mixed-methods process and health economic evaluations will take place alongside the trial. Assessments will be completed before randomisation and at 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The trial started in December 2015 and will run for 77 months. Recruitment will take place in approximately 42 sites around the UK. Discussion: The trial will test the hypothesis that SLT is effective for the treatment of speech or voice problems in people with PD compared to no SLT. It will further test whether NHS SLT or LSVT LOUD® provide greater benefit and determine the cost-effectiveness of both interventions. Trial registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Registry, ID: 12421382. Registered on 18 April 2016

A multicentre, randomised controlled trial to compare the clinical and cost-effectiveness of Lee Silverman Voice Treatment versus standard NHS Speech and Language Therapy versus control in Parkinson’s disease: a study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Abstract: Background: Parkinson’s disease (PD) affects approximately 145,519 people in the UK. Speech impairments are common with a reported prevalence of 68%, which increase physical and mental demands during conversation, reliance on family and/or carers, and the likelihood of social withdrawal reducing quality of life. In the UK, two approaches to Speech and Language Therapy (SLT) intervention are commonly available: National Health Service (NHS) SLT or Lee Silverman Voice Treatment (LSVT LOUD®). NHS SLT is tailored to the individuals’ needs per local practice typically consisting of six to eight weekly sessions; LSVT LOUD® comprises 16 sessions of individual treatment with home-based practice over 4 weeks. The evidence-base for their effectiveness is inconclusive. Methods/design: PD COMM is a phase III, multicentre, three-arm, unblinded, randomised controlled trial. Five hundred and forty-six people with idiopathic PD, reporting speech or voice problems will be enrolled. We will exclude those with a diagnosis of dementia, laryngeal pathology or those who have received SLT for speech problems in the previous 2 years. Following informed consent and completion of baseline assessments, participants will be randomised in a 1:1:1 ratio to no-intervention control, NHS SLT or LSVT LOUD® via a central computer-generated programme, using a minimisation procedure with a random element, to ensure allocation concealment. Participants randomised to the intervention groups will start treatment within 4 (NHS SLT) or 7 (LSVT LOUD®) weeks of randomisation. Primary outcome: Voice Handicap Index (VHI) total score at 3 months. Secondary outcomes include: VHI subscales, Parkinson’s Disease Questionnaire-39; Questionnaire on Acquired Speech Disorders; EuroQol-5D-5 L; ICECAP-O; resource utilisation; adverse events and carer quality of life. Mixed-methods process and health economic evaluations will take place alongside the trial. Assessments will be completed before randomisation and at 3, 6 and 12 months after randomisation. The trial started in December 2015 and will run for 77 months. Recruitment will take place in approximately 42 sites around the UK. Discussion: The trial will test the hypothesis that SLT is effective for the treatment of speech or voice problems in people with PD compared to no SLT. It will further test whether NHS SLT or LSVT LOUD® provide greater benefit and determine the cost-effectiveness of both interventions. Trial registration: International Standard Randomised Controlled Trials Number (ISRCTN) Registry, ID: 12421382. Registered on 18 April 2016

Moving Beyond 20 Questions: We (Still) Need Stronger Psychological Theory

There has been growing awareness that many empirical demonstrations in psychology are difficult to reproduce: a problem called the replication crisis. To address the current replication crisis, Psychology has responded by re-examining its professional incentive systems, publication models, and research practices. Several reforms are now underway to correct for the problems, however skepticism is growing that psychology will escape the replication crisis by improvements in research practice alone. We address the theory crisis, the problems it poses for editors and reviewers, and we propose ways that reviewers and editors can contribute to addressing the replication crisis

An instance theory of associative learning

We present and test an instance model of associative learning. The model, Minerva-AL, treats associative learning as cued recall. Memory preserves the events of individual trials in separate traces. A probe presented to memory contacts all traces in parallel and retrieves a weighted sum of the traces, a structure called the echo. Learning of a cue–outcome relationship is measured by the cue’s ability to retrieve a target outcome. The theory predicts a number of associative learning phenomena, including acquisition, extinction, reacquisition, conditioned inhibition, external inhibition, latent inhibition, discrimination, generalization, blocking, overshadowing, overexpectation, superconditioning, recovery from blocking, recovery from overshadowing, recovery from overexpectation, backward blocking, backward conditioned inhibition, and second-order retrospective revaluation. We argue that associative learning is consistent with an instance-based approach to learning and memory

A memory-based account of retrospective revaluation

We adapt an instance model of human memory, Minerva 2, to simulate retrospective revaluation. In the account, memory preserves the events of individual trials in separate traces. A probe presented to memory contacts all traces in parallel and causes each to become active. The information retrieved from memory is the sum of the activated traces. Learning is modelled as a process of cued-recall; encoding is modelled as a process of differential encoding of unexpected features in the probe (i.e., expectancy-encoding). The model captures three examples of retrospective revaluation: backward blocking, recovery from blocking, and backward conditioned inhibition. The work integrates an understanding of human memory and complex associative learning. © 2010 Canadian Psychological Association

Controlling the retrieval of general vs specific semantic knowledge in the instancetheory of semantic memory

Distributional models of semantic cognition commonly makesimplifying assumptions, such as representing word co-occurrence structure by prototype-like high-dimensional se-mantic vectors, and limit how retrieval processes may con-tribute to the construction and use of semantic knowl-edge. More recently, the instance theory of semantics (ITS,Jamieson, Avery, Johns, & Jones, 2018) reconceived a dis-tributional model in terms of instance-based memory, allow-ing context-specific construction of semantic knowledge at thetime of retrieval. By simulation, we show that additional en-coding and retrieval operations, consistent with learning andmemory theory, can play a crucial role in flexibly controllingthe construction of general versus specific semantic knowl-edge. We argue this consolidation of processing principlesholds insight for distributional theories of semantic cognition

An Instance Theory of Distrobutional Semantics

Abstraction to a single prototypical representation is a core principle of Distributional Semantic Models (DSMs) that learn semantic representations for words by applying dimension reduction to statistical redundancies in language. While the learning mechanisms for semantic abstraction vary widely across the many DSMs in the literature, they are essentially all prototype models in that they create a single abstract representation for a word’s meaning. The prototype method stands in stark contrast to work in the field of categorization that has converged on the importance of instance models. In comparison to the prototype method, instance-based models assume only an episodic store and, rather than applying abstraction mechanisms at learning, argue that meaning emerges in the act of retrieval. We cash this idea out by presenting and evaluating an instance theory of distributional semantics, and by demonstrating that it can explain diverging patterns of homonymous words that classic “abstraction-at-learning” models simply cannot as a consequence of their architectural assumptions