↓ Skip to main content

Improved information pooling for hierarchical cognitive models through multiple and covaried regression

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Research Methods, July 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Readers on

mendeley
15 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Improved information pooling for hierarchical cognitive models through multiple and covaried regression
Published in
Behavior Research Methods, July 2017
DOI 10.3758/s13428-017-0921-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. Anders, Z. Oravecz, F.-X. Alario

Abstract

Cognitive process models are fit to observed data to infer how experimental manipulations modify the assumed underlying cognitive process. They are alternatives to descriptive models, which only capture differences on the observed data level, and do not make assumptions about the underlying cognitive process. Process models may require more observations than descriptive models however, and as a consequence, usually fewer conditions can be simultaneously modeled with them. Unfortunately, it is known that the predictive validity of a model may be compromised when fewer experimental conditions are jointly accounted for (e.g., overestimation of predictor effects, or their incorrect assignment). We develop a hierarchical and covaried multiple regression approach to address this problem. Specifically, we show how to map the recurrences of all conditions, participants, items, and/or traits across experimental design cells to the process model parameters. This systematic pooling of information can facilitate parameter estimation. The proposed approach is particularly relevant for multi-factor experimental designs, and for mixture models that parameterize per cell to assess predictor effects. This hierarchical framework provides the capacity to model more conditions jointly to improve parameter recovery at low observation numbers (e.g., using only 1/6 of trials, recovering as well as standard hierarchical Bayesian methods), and to directly model predictor and covariate effects on the process parameters, without the need for post hoc analyses (e.g., ANOVA). An example application to real data is also provided.

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

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 15 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 27%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 20%
Student > Master 3 20%
Professor > Associate Professor 2 13%
Researcher 2 13%
Other 1 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 8 53%
Mathematics 1 7%
Decision Sciences 1 7%
Neuroscience 1 7%
Engineering 1 7%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 3 20%
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 28 June 2023.
All research outputs
#15,745,807
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#1,423
of 2,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#178,624
of 324,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#30
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 37th percentile – i.e., 37% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
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 is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% 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 324,855 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 43rd percentile – i.e., 43% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.