More Like this

1. Changing What You See by Changing What You Know: The Role of Attention

   https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00553  

   Lupyan, Gary ( May 2017 , Frontiers in Psychology)

   null (Ed.)
2. What you see and what you are told: an action-specific effect that is unaffected by explicit feedback

   https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-017-0848-8  

   King, Zachary R. ; Tenhundfeld, Nathan L. ; Witt, Jessica K. ( February 2017 , Psychological Research)
3. What you see is what you get?–Relating eye-tracking metrics to students' attention to game elements

   A. Shojaee, H. W. ( January 2021 , 2021 IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference (FIE))
4. What you see may not be what you get: UCB bandit algorithms robust to ε-contamination

   Niss, L. ; Tewari, A. ( January 2020 , Proceedings of the 36th Annual Conference on Uncertainty in Artificial Intelligence)

   null (Ed.)
5. Merge what you can, fork what you can't: managing data integrity in local-first software

   https://doi.org/10.1145/3517209.3524041  

   Schiefer, Nicholas ; Litt, Geoffrey ; Jackson, Daniel ( April 2022 , Proceedings of the 9th Workshop on Principles and Practice of Consistency for Distributed Data)

   In a local-first architecture that prioritizes availability in the presence of network partitions, there is a tension between two goals: merging concurrent changes without user intervention and maintaining data integrity constraints. We propose a synchronization model called forking histories which satisfies both goals in an unconventional way. In the case of conflicting writes, the model exposes multiple event histories that users can see and edit rather than converging to a single state. This allows integrity constraints to be maintained within each history while giving users flexibility in deciding when to manually reconcile conflicts. We describe a class of applications for which these integrity constraints are particularly important and propose a design for a system that implements this model. 

   more » « less