Tag Info

MANOVA is definitely a bad idea given that one dv is continuous and the other is binomial. After exploring a number of different approaches to combining RT and accuracy data, I've come to conclude that the best current approach is to use linear ballistic accumulator model (e.g., see Donkin et al 2011). The LBA is a simple (structurally and computationally) ...

Here are a few options. I have not tried them yet personally. LBA Scott Brown has a copy of Donkin et al (2009) on his web page with some code in R, Excel, and WinBUGS for fitting the LBA model: http://www.newcl.org/publications/DonkinAverellEtAl2009BRM.pdf http://www.newcl.org/members/chris/fitLBA.zip Diffusion model The Diffussion model is ...

There are a variety of models solving accuracy and RT that have been pretty well tested and LBA is probably fine (I haven't used it). If you don't want to go that far there is a rather simple way to analyze data controlling for SAT that has much better mathematical properties than IE scores (which, as Mike said were named by me, but offhandedly proposed by ...

A paper comparing the performance of Inverse Efficiency Scores and diffusion models for the quantification of RT and accuracy can be found here. Rach et al. (2011) "On quantifying multisensory interaction effects in reaction time and detection rate " Psychological Research Volume 75, Number 2, 77-94, DOI , PDF

The basic approach that you are describing sounds like inverse efficiency scores (e.g., see Townsend and Ashby, 1978,1983), which are measured as $$\frac{r}{1-e} = \frac{r}{c}$$ where $r$ is reaction time, $e$ is proportion error, and $c$ is proportion correct. John Christie provides a critique of inverse efficiency scores here or see the discussion in ...

Using Parameters Estimated from an Individual in a Group Analysis In a way this is exactly what usually happens when we calculate the mean reaction time across all conditions for a group of participants. When we normally calculate mean reaction times we assume that some process (P) takes t milliseconds to complete plus some Gaussian distributed noise. We ...

Another possible approach is using EZ-diffusion model suggested by Wagenmaker, van der Mass and Grasman (2007). Quoting Brown & Heathcote (2008; p. 4): This model is extremely simple, with just one source of variability in evidence accumulation—within-trial randomness—and simple linear accumulation (although evidence for one response does count ...

I recently had similar problem and I used inverse efficiency (IE) scores. These scores were derived by dividing the response times by correct response rates separately for each condition, carried out in such a way that the higher the score was, the worse was the performance. So you get something like "corrected reaction time" scores. Here is example of paper ...

For the diffusion model, there is also Eric-Jan Wagenmakers' "EZ-diffusion model", which you can find here. This paper compares three different pieces of software for estimation of diffusion model parameters: von Ravenzwaaij D., & Oberauer, K. (2009). How to use the diffusion model: Parameter recovery of three methods: EZ, fast-dm, and DMAT. ...

I think you need to think about what you mean by "speed of thinking". Your language implies that you are looking for a generalised way to be more intelligent. I have not seen any simple interventions for increasing general intelligence. You may find it more productive to focus on particular domains of your life that you want to improve. Practice and ...

I imagine most software designed for creating psychological experiments will be able to do this. (e.g., EPrime, Direct RT, MediaLab, SuperLab, etc.). I've mainly used Inquisit to record responses and response times. These are all proprietary options. You could also readily implement a trial interface with a textbox and response times in standard programming ...

If I managed to understand, each participant may have a slightly different viewing experience, as long as it's constant through multiple sessions each participant has. To achieve this, you may ask participants to sit an arm's reach from their monitor. Try to make the images span the same physical size (even though it's really hard to achieve ...

2 sounds reasonable. The variability you introduce by sticking to pixels or display ratios seems like it outweighs the apparent unreliability of monitor size calculations. Also, unlike TVs that scale the content to fit the size, most webpages do not scale -- so, when I drag a webpage from my laptop screen to my second (larger) monitor, the size stays ...

In chess it helps not to watch for the entire thing, instead to watch only out for "structures" you know, e.g., some particular structure of a famous checkmate position. You can also think in layers, and remove minor threads out of your thinking, like pawns or pieces on the starting line. This should also work in real world thinking. Remove minor threads ...