↓ Skip to main content

A tutorial on testing the race model inequality

Overview of attention for article published in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, December 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
76 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
100 Mendeley
Title
A tutorial on testing the race model inequality
Published in
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, December 2015
DOI 10.3758/s13414-015-1018-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Matthias Gondan, Katsumi Minakata

Abstract

When participants respond in the same way to stimuli of two categories, responses are often observed to be faster when both stimuli are presented together (redundant signals) relative to the response time obtained when they are presented separately. This effect is known as the redundant signals effect. Several models have been proposed to explain this effect, including race models and coactivation models of information processing. In race models, the two stimulus components are processed in separate channels, and the faster channel determines the processing time. This mechanism leads, on average, to faster responses to redundant signals. In contrast, coactivation models assume integrated processing of the combined stimuli. To distinguish between these two accounts, Miller (Cognitive Psychology, 14, 247-279, 1982) derived the well-known race model inequality, which has become a routine test for behavioral data in experiments with redundant signals. In this tutorial, we review the basic properties of redundant signals experiments and current statistical procedures used to test the race model inequality during the period between 2011 and 2014. We highlight and discuss several issues concerning study design and the test of the race model inequality, such as inappropriate control of Type I error, insufficient statistical power, wrong treatment of omitted responses or anticipations, and the interpretation of violations of the race model inequality. We make detailed recommendations on the design of redundant signals experiments and on the statistical analysis of redundancy gains. We describe a number of coactivation models that may be considered when the race model has been shown to fail.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user 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 100 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Sweden 1 1%
Unknown 97 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 26 26%
Student > Master 13 13%
Researcher 11 11%
Student > Bachelor 8 8%
Professor 7 7%
Other 16 16%
Unknown 19 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 39 39%
Neuroscience 20 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 3%
Physics and Astronomy 2 2%
Computer Science 2 2%
Other 8 8%
Unknown 26 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. 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 18 December 2015.
All research outputs
#19,512,854
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#1,533
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#288,448
of 394,738 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#55
of 55 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 394,738 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 55 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.