↓ Skip to main content

Replication Requires Psychological Rather than Statistical Hypotheses: The Case of Eye Movements Enhancing Word Recollection

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (82nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
32 X users
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
6 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
36 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
Replication Requires Psychological Rather than Statistical Hypotheses: The Case of Eye Movements Enhancing Word Recollection
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2016
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2016.02023
Pubmed ID
Authors

R. Hans Phaf

Abstract

Can an experiment be replicated in a mechanical fashion without considering the processes underlying the initial results? Here I will consider a non-replication of Saccade Induced Retrieval Enhancement (SIRE) and argue that it results from focusing on statistical instead of on substantive process hypotheses. Particularly the theoretical integration of SIRE with Eye-Movement Desensitization and Reprocessing (EMDR) therapy, provides clues about when the memory enhancement should occur. A relatively large memory enhancement effect in participants with a consistent (i.e., extreme right or left) handedness should be observed, (a) when explicitly instructed to retrieve and imagine the memories during the eye manipulation, and (b) for emotionally negative material. A finer theoretical analysis may thus well explain the contrast between the original SIRE studies and the non-replication. Also the findings from preregistered confirmatory research (i.e., focusing solely on statistical hypotheses) should be considered preliminary, representing shifts on a gradual scale of evidence, and awaiting interpretation in terms of theoretical hypotheses. Stronger, but still not definitive, conclusions can better be postponed until after multi-study meta-analyses with theoretically motivated moderator variables have been performed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 32 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 36 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 3%
Germany 1 3%
Unknown 34 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 10 28%
Other 5 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 11%
Professor > Associate Professor 4 11%
Professor 2 6%
Other 8 22%
Unknown 3 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 67%
Physics and Astronomy 2 6%
Neuroscience 2 6%
Computer Science 1 3%
Philosophy 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 4 11%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. 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 January 2017.
All research outputs
#1,965,703
of 25,649,244 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#4,008
of 34,727 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#38,704
of 423,665 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#72
of 423 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,649,244 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 92nd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,727 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% 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 423,665 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 423 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.