This study examined cognitive and temperamental predictors of susceptibility to orientation illusions, using adjustment tasks based on the Poggendorff and Zöllner figures. Cognitive predictors included field dependence–independence and the efficiency of Posner’s attentional networks (alerting, orienting, and executive control), while temperamental traits were assessed within Strelau’s Regulative Theory of Temperament. A total of 161 participants aged 20–33 years took part in the study. Susceptibility to the Poggendorff illusion was associated only with lower alerting network efficiency. In contrast, susceptibility to the Zöllner illusion was linked to both cognitive and temperamental factors: a field-dependent cognitive style combined with moderate or high Endurance, and an efficient orienting network combined with high Briskness. The findings support a multifactorial, illusion-specific account of susceptibility to orientation illusions, demonstrating that attentional, cognitive-style, and temperamental characteristics jointly contribute to individual differences in illusion strength.
Recent advances in machine learning (ML) have led to growing interest in the classification of psychiatric disorders using biomarkers such as electroencephalography (EEG), offering promising prospects for improving diagnostic accuracy. However, the methodological variability in existing studies makes it challenging to identify the best strategies for enhancing this crucial tool. This systematic review summarizes studies using resting-state EEG for psychiatric disorders classification to identify key strategies for optimizing classification performance. Our analysis reveals a significant interaction between the EEG features used for classification and the chosen ML algorithms. Notably, neural networks outperform traditional ML methods, especially when applied to raw data or to complex data without feature selection. Relying solely on linear features can undermine model performance, whereas combining diverse feature types leads to higher accuracies. Additionally, preprocessing data with a notch filter can enhance model performance. We underline the importance of obtaining sufficient sample sizes and using
subject-wise validation to mitigate potential overfitting. Moreover, we investigate the best-performing features, showing the importance of connectivity features, alpha and beta frequency bands, and frontal brain regions for depression detection; raw features and theta and alpha frequency bands for schizophrenia; and combined features and theta and alpha frequency bands for addiction. These insights synthesize the most effective approaches and provide valuable guidance for developing new tools in this field.
The article examines the role of protective factors in explaining temporal changes in violence risk among forensic psychiatric patients and prison inmates in Poland. A longitudinal study was conducted with 403 men (201 forensic patients and 202 inmates). Participants were assessed twice at a six-month-long interval using the HCR-20v3 and SAPROF. Forensic psychiatric patients showed a significant reduction in integrated risk for vioence, while prison inmates exhibited a slight increase in this field during the same period. In the patient group, the level of motivational protective factors from SAPROF was the sole notable predictor (albeit with low predictive power) explaining the variance in risk reduction. No protective factors significantly predicted risk changes in the inmate group. The findings indicate that risk dynamics may be context-dependent. The conducted analyses require further deepening and expansion. To facilitate this within the Polish psychiatric and penitentiary systems, systemic improvements are necessary, including the further implementation of Structured Professional Judgement (SPJ) risk assessment tools.
Numerous scholarly works have examined the course and execution of criminal procedural and forensic activities related to interrogation. The way this activity is carried out is discussed in textbooks on forensic science and is also addressed during workshop classes and lecture courses in criminal procedure. The importance of proper and reliable documentation of proced-ural activities cannot be overstated. This activity is examined both at the stage of court proceedings and during the preparatory phase, often accom-panied by subsequent allegations that the record was prepared in an unreli-able manner, does not reflect the actual factual situation, is defective, or is false. Allegations are also raised directly against the officer conducting the activity, accusing them of bias or of having an interest in a particular out-come, as well as concerning the atmosphere in which the interrogation was conducted. The findings presented in this article constitute a continuation (in the form of a separate text) of the Author’s reflections developed over the years and represent their considerations, conclusions, and observations. In the theoretical and research assumptions, emphasis has been placed on guidelines and appropriate elements relating to the drafting of records, which should form the framework for deliberations by those conducting this activity. The postulates, assumptions, and recommendations are accompanied by commentary and by indications of possible procedural errors and their impact on the course of proceedings. The article includes examples that are useful in the practical documentation of interrogations concerning eviden-tiary issues, as well as the practice of their application. Nevertheless, atten-tion should be paid to elements of the text as constituting guidelines rather than certainties, since every interrogation is different, both in terms of the person being questioned and the scope of the act to which it relates. For this reason, the application of automatic or schematic approaches during an in-terrogation is not possible.
Many scientific fields of study use formally established reportingstandards to foster research and experimental design, transparency,replicability, peer review, and student training. Examples includeCONSORT in medicine, the What Works Clearinghouse in educa-tion, JARS in psychology. Such standards yield agreement on studyreporting and evaluation, even if using different methodologies.CHI has not adopted reporting standards. Like other fields, CHI hasseen an increased number of low-quality submissions and reviewsfueled by AI. This panel’s objective is to discuss advantages and bar-riers of adopting reporting standards for SIGCHI. Panelists includerepresentatives with significant experience creating, adopting andoperationalizing reporting standards in adjacent fields: softwareengineering, CS education, and Programming Languages. The panelwill include an overview of the history of reporting standards, a livedemo of a standards-based peer review system, discussions of op-portunities, challenges, limitations for SIGCHI reporting standards,and an interactive discussion between attendees and panelists
