Good to have an agreement on ubiquity of 1/f scaling, I also am of the opinion experimental control is essential (see Hasselman, 2013). I would add that direct confrontation of theoretical predictions is crucial as well:

"In order to advance scientific knowledge about scaling phenomena in living systems a program of strong inference that aims to produce closed theories of principles is needed. In order to reach this goal, empirical inquiries need to go beyond describing scaling phenomena in different populations in the context of impaired performance or pathology (e.g., Goldberger et al., 2002; Gilden and Hancock, 2007; West, 2010; Wijnants et al., 2012a). Several recent studies reveal scaling phenomena can be brought under experimental control, which is essential for a program of strong inference (e.g., Kello et al., 2007; Wijnants et al., 2009; Van Orden et al., 2010; Correll, 2011; Holden et al., 2011; Kuznetsov et al., 2011; Stephen et al., 2012). The diverging theoretical predictions examined in most studies reveal that the observed waveforms are more likely to originate from interaction-dominant complexity than from component-dominant mechanics (also see Turvey, 2007; Kello et al., 2010; Diniz et al., 2011)."

From: http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fphys.2013.00075/full 

At least these articles revealing experimental control over scaling exponents should have been discussed:

  • Wijnants et al., 2009 (Practice motor learning http://fredhasselman.com/main/wp-content/papercite-data/pdf/wijnants2009.pdf)
  • Wijnants et al., 2012 (Speed-Accuracy TradeOff http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fphys.2012.00116 )
  • Correll, 2008; 2011 (Correll, 2008 was replicated, manipulation failed, but all subjects showed 1/f noise)
  • Kuznetsov et al., 2011; (instruction manipulation)

Then, there are many more  studies that make risky predictions or directly confront two or more competing predictions (in fact, all predictions in 1/f studies are more risky than mainstream, because they concern interval predictions and not merely > 0). In any case, they do much more than 'just' show another case of 1/f noise in some population.

  • Van Orden (2005) Tested presence of a low-frequency plateau predicted by AR models by recording a timeseries of several hours.
  • Den Hartig et al. (Rowing proficiency https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274318392_Pink_Noise_in_Rowing_Ergometer_Performance_and_the_Role_of_Skill_Level )
  •  Wijnants et al. 2012 (correlations between scaling and reading in dyslexic readers, but not in average readers http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11881-012-0067-3 )
  • Lowie et al. 2014 (multilingual speech production:  http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10407413.2014.929479 )

All the best,

Fred

http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fphys.2013.00075/full

Article Experimental control of scaling behavior: what is not fractal?

Article Pink Noise in Rowing Ergometer Performance and the Role of Skill Level

Similar questions and discussions