In a recent article Mansinha (1984) showed a very promising method for the calculation of forward digital filters for resistivity sounding. The method he describes uses the Butterworth filter in the k-wavenumber domain in order to avert Gibbs oscillations and to avoid later phase shift. This is an advantage over commonly employed techniques.However, we would like to remark on the use of Mansinha's filters. After we applied these filters for calculation of the resistivity transform function T(Â), the results obtained were completely discouraging.After personal communication with the author we learned that in order to obtain adequate results it is necessary to (a) multiply all coefficients with the appropriate value of Ax, except the two end coefficients and (b) to multiply the end coefficients with 0.5 Ax. Having modified the filter coefficients we carried out the necessary test trying to reproduce the results published in the paper. Table I shows the test made on the set of auxiliary functions used by Mansinha. The values were calculated using Mansinha's (1984) filters Ghosh's filter (Ghosh 1971) and a filter of 128 coefficients with a sampling interval of 1/8 In,, generated by using Seara's (1977) program. However, the results obtained are still inadequate unless the numerical values of the kernel function were shifted by one sample interval to the right. This means that the described filters have a shift, that is, the abscissa x = 0.0 pointed in the paper does not really correspond to the origin but to a displaced abscissa by one sampling interval shifted to the left. The adequate abscissa x = 0.0 of each filter should be x = -A x .Taking this into account, we obtained results similar to those of Mansinha (table 2).
Con el objetivo de examinar los estilos y enfoques de aprendizaje, se aplicaron dos cuestionarios (CHAEA y R-SPQ-2F) a estudiantes de psicología (N = 221) de tres semestres diferentes. Los resultados obtenidos mostraron que el estilo Reflexivo fue elegido en primer lugar, mientras que el estilo Activo lo fue en último (F(2.071, 455.620) = 45.836, p < .001). No se encontraron diferencias entre los tres semestres examinados. Por otro lado, los participantes se decantaron por el enfoque Profundo de aprendizaje y no por el Superficial (t(220) = 24.603, p < .001, d de Cohen = 2.55). Una prueba de Pearson mostró relaciones fuertes y positivas entre el enfoque Profundo y los estilos de aprendizaje Reflexivo, Teórico y Pragmático. Tal y como se ha encontrado en otros estudios, los participantes se inclinaron por el estilo Reflexivo y eligieron el enfoque Profundo, lo cual parece reflejar la forma en cómo se desarrolla el trabajo académico realizado en el nivel universitario. Es importante mencionar que las características psicométricas de los instrumentos utilizados poseen una consistencia adecuada, lo cual sustenta su empleo para el análisis de los estilos y enfoques de los estudiantes como un paso previo antes de su inserción en el proceso educativo.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.