English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Despite the increased use of light microscopy in microwear analysis, studies that recognize observer error are scarce. Nonetheless, microwear analysis based on light microscopy may be more prone to observer bias than SEM or confocal microscopy. We measured observer error among five observers, who independently analyzed identical sets of dental wear surfaces on digital micrographs taken through a light microscope. For experienced microscopists, error in light-microscope-based microwear was of a similar magnitude to error rates for SEM-based microwear methods. Significant intraobserver error was rare among the most experienced observers and higher among inexperienced observers. However, because observers develop familiarity when repeatedly analyzing the same image, intraobserver error measured here and in other similar SEM studies may be artificially low. Interobserver error was highly significant and did not appear to diminish with experience. Nonetheless, the data collected by all observers was highly correlated. Essentially all observers found similar microwear differences between the species analyzed, even though the absolute values in the data were observer dependent. Going forward, microwear results will be more robust if observers adopt methods that ensure observer blindness, and avoid the common practice of combining data from different observers, and even from one observer when the observarions are separated by time and experience. Rather than using pre-published microwear databases of extant species as a basis for interpreting paleodiet, researchers may be better served by building shared microwear image libraries, with which observers could generate their own data for the basis of making paleodietary inferences. Matthew C. Mihlbachler. Department of Anatomy, New York College of Osteopathic Medicine at the NewYork Institute of Technology, Old Westbury, New York 11568 USA Brian L. Beatty. Department of Anatomy, New York College of Osteopathic Medicine at the New York Institute of Technology, Old Westbury, New York 11568 USA Angela Caldera-Siu. Department of Anatomy, New York College of Osteopathic Medicine at the New York Institute of Technology, Old Westbury, New York 11568 USA Doris Chan. Department of Anatomy, New York College of Osteopathic Medicine at the New York Institute of Technology, Old Westbury, New York 11568 USA PE Article Number: 15.1.12A Copyright: Paleontological Society March 2012 Submission: 15 August 2011. Acceptance: 19 February 2012 Mihlbachler, Matthew C., Beatty, Brian L., Caldera-Siu, Angela, Chan, Doris, and Lee, Richard, 2012. Error rates and observer bias in dental microwear analysis using light microscopy. Palaeontologia Electronica Vol. 15, Issue 1;12A,22p; palaeo-electronica.org/content/2012-issue-1-articles/195-microwear-observer-error MIHLBACHLER, ET AL.: MICROWEAR OBSERVER ERROR Richard Lee. Department of Anatomy, New York College of Osteopathic Medicine at the New York Institute of Technology, Old Westbury, New York 11568 USA