↓ Skip to main content

Measuring individual differences in statistical learning: Current pitfalls and possible solutions

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Research Methods, March 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
160 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
235 Mendeley
Title
Measuring individual differences in statistical learning: Current pitfalls and possible solutions
Published in
Behavior Research Methods, March 2016
DOI 10.3758/s13428-016-0719-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Noam Siegelman, Louisa Bogaerts, Ram Frost

Abstract

Most research in statistical learning (SL) has focused on the mean success rates of participants in detecting statistical contingencies at a group level. In recent years, however, researchers have shown increased interest in individual abilities in SL, either to predict other cognitive capacities or as a tool for understanding the mechanism underlying SL. Most if not all of this research enterprise has employed SL tasks that were originally designed for group-level studies. We argue that from an individual difference perspective, such tasks are psychometrically weak, and sometimes even flawed. In particular, the existing SL tasks have three major shortcomings: (1) the number of trials in the test phase is often too small (or, there is extensive repetition of the same targets throughout the test); (2) a large proportion of the sample performs at chance level, so that most of the data points reflect noise; and (3) the test items following familiarization are all of the same type and an identical level of difficulty. These factors lead to high measurement error, inevitably resulting in low reliability, and thereby doubtful validity. Here we present a novel method specifically designed for the measurement of individual differences in visual SL. The novel task we offer displays substantially superior psychometric properties. We report data regarding the reliability of the task and discuss the importance of the implementation of such tasks in future research.

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 235 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Switzerland 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Israel 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 229 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 58 25%
Student > Master 40 17%
Student > Bachelor 28 12%
Researcher 23 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 12 5%
Other 26 11%
Unknown 48 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 91 39%
Linguistics 26 11%
Neuroscience 19 8%
Social Sciences 9 4%
Arts and Humanities 7 3%
Other 23 10%
Unknown 60 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 13 March 2018.
All research outputs
#15,169,949
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#1,364
of 2,525 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#155,808
of 313,454 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#16
of 31 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,525 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% 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 313,454 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 31 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.