↓ Skip to main content

Interaction effects on common measures of sensitivity: choice of measure, type I error, and power

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Research Methods, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
9 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
23 Mendeley
Title
Interaction effects on common measures of sensitivity: choice of measure, type I error, and power
Published in
Behavior Research Methods, July 2018
DOI 10.3758/s13428-018-1081-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Stephen Rhodes, Nelson Cowan, Mario A. Parra, Robert H. Logie

Abstract

Here we use simulation to assess previously unaddressed problems in the assessment of statistical interactions in detection and recognition tasks. The proportion of hits and false-alarms made by an observer on such tasks is affected by both their sensitivity and bias, and numerous measures have been developed to separate out these two factors. Each of these measures makes different assumptions regarding the underlying process and different predictions as to how false-alarm and hit rates should covary. Previous simulations have shown that choice of an inappropriate measure can lead to inflated type I error rates, or reduced power, for main effects, provided there are differences in response bias between the conditions being compared. Interaction effects pose a particular problem in this context. We show that spurious interaction effects in analysis of variance can be produced, or true interactions missed, even in the absence of variation in bias. Additional simulations show that variation in bias complicates patterns of type I error and power further. This under-appreciated fact has the potential to greatly distort the assessment of interactions in detection and recognition experiments. We discuss steps researchers can take to mitigate their chances of making an error.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 23 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 23 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 8 35%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 13%
Student > Master 3 13%
Researcher 2 9%
Student > Bachelor 2 9%
Other 2 9%
Unknown 3 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 14 61%
Neuroscience 3 13%
Mathematics 1 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 4%
Unknown 4 17%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 July 2018.
All research outputs
#8,430,732
of 25,385,509 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#1,020
of 2,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#133,757
of 340,475 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#38
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,385,509 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 59% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 340,475 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.