Refine
Has Fulltext
- no (4) (remove)
Document Type
- Article (4)
Language
- English (4)
Is part of the Bibliography
- yes (4)
Keywords
- Bayesian inference (4) (remove)
Institute
- Department Psychologie (4) (remove)
Process-oriented theories of cognition must be evaluated against time-ordered observations. Here we present a representative example for data assimilation of the SWIFT model, a dynamical model of the control of fixation positions and fixation durations during natural reading of single sentences. First, we develop and test an approximate likelihood function of the model, which is a combination of a spatial, pseudo-marginal likelihood and a temporal likelihood obtained by probability density approximation Second, we implement a Bayesian approach to parameter inference using an adaptive Markov chain Monte Carlo procedure. Our results indicate that model parameters can be estimated reliably for individual subjects. We conclude that approximative Bayesian inference represents a considerable step forward for computational models of eye-movement control, where modeling of individual data on the basis of process-based dynamic models has not been possible so far.
When researchers carry out a null hypothesis significance test, it is tempting to assume that a statistically significant result lowers Prob(H0), the probability of the null hypothesis being true. Technically, such a statement is meaningless for various reasons: e.g., the null hypothesis does not have a probability associated with it. However, it is possible to relax certain assumptions to compute the posterior probability Prob(H0) under repeated sampling. We show in a step-by-step guide that the intuitively appealing belief, that Prob(H0) is low when significant results have been obtained under repeated sampling, is in general incorrect and depends greatly on: (a) the prior probability of the null being true; (b) type-I error rate, (c) type-II error rate, and (d) replication of a result. Through step-by-step simulations using open-source code in the R System of Statistical Computing, we show that uncertainty about the null hypothesis being true often remains high despite a significant result. To help the reader develop intuitions about this common misconception, we provide a Shiny app (https://danielschad.shinyapps.io/probnull/). We expect that this tutorial will help researchers better understand and judge results from null hypothesis significance tests.
In eye-movement control during reading, advanced process-oriented models have been developed to reproduce behavioral data. So far, model complexity and large numbers of model parameters prevented rigorous statistical inference and modeling of interindividual differences. Here we propose a Bayesian approach to both problems for one representative computational model of sentence reading (SWIFT; Engbert et al., Psychological Review, 112, 2005, pp. 777-813). We used experimental data from 36 subjects who read the text in a normal and one of four manipulated text layouts (e.g., mirrored and scrambled letters). The SWIFT model was fitted to subjects and experimental conditions individually to investigate between- subject variability. Based on posterior distributions of model parameters, fixation probabilities and durations are reliably recovered from simulated data and reproduced for withheld empirical data, at both the experimental condition and subject levels. A subsequent statistical analysis of model parameters across reading conditions generates model-driven explanations for observable effects between conditions.
Aggregate and individual replication probability within an explicit model of the research process
(2011)
We study a model of the research process in which the true effect size, the replication jitter due to changes in experimental procedure, and the statistical error of effect size measurement are all normally distributed random variables. Within this model, we analyze the probability of successfully replicating an initial experimental result by obtaining either a statistically significant result in the same direction or any effect in that direction. We analyze both the probability of successfully replicating a particular experimental effect (i.e., the individual replication probability) and the average probability of successful replication across different studies within some research context (i.e., the aggregate replication probability), and we identify the conditions under which the latter can be approximated using the formulas of Killeen (2005a, 2007). We show how both of these probabilities depend on parameters of the research context that would rarely be known in practice. In addition, we show that the statistical uncertainty associated with the size of an initial observed effect would often prevent accurate estimation of the desired individual replication probability even if these research context parameters were known exactly. We conclude that accurate estimates of replication probability are generally unattainable.