反应时间分析的异常值排除程序:治疗通常比疾病更糟糕。

IF 3.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Journal of Experimental Psychology: General Pub Date : 2023-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-07-27 DOI:10.1037/xge0001450
Jeff Miller
{"title":"反应时间分析的异常值排除程序:治疗通常比疾病更糟糕。","authors":"Jeff Miller","doi":"10.1037/xge0001450","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A methodological problem in most reaction time (RT) tasks is that some measured RTs may be outliers, being either too fast or too slow to reflect the task-related processing of interest. Numerous ad hoc procedures have been used to identify these outliers for exclusion from further analyses, but the accuracies of these methods have not been systematically compared. The present study compared the performance of 58 different outlier exclusion procedures (OEPs) using four huge datasets of real RTs. The results suggest that these OEPs are likely to do more harm than good, because they incorrectly identify outliers, increase noise, introduce bias, and generally reduce statistical power. The results suggest that RT researchers should not automatically apply any of these OEPs to clean their RT data prior to the main analyses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":" ","pages":"3189-3217"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Outlier exclusion procedures for reaction time analysis: The cures are generally worse than the disease.\",\"authors\":\"Jeff Miller\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xge0001450\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A methodological problem in most reaction time (RT) tasks is that some measured RTs may be outliers, being either too fast or too slow to reflect the task-related processing of interest. Numerous ad hoc procedures have been used to identify these outliers for exclusion from further analyses, but the accuracies of these methods have not been systematically compared. The present study compared the performance of 58 different outlier exclusion procedures (OEPs) using four huge datasets of real RTs. The results suggest that these OEPs are likely to do more harm than good, because they incorrectly identify outliers, increase noise, introduce bias, and generally reduce statistical power. The results suggest that RT researchers should not automatically apply any of these OEPs to clean their RT data prior to the main analyses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"3189-3217\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001450\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/7/27 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001450","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/7/27 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

大多数反应时间(RT)任务中的一个方法问题是,一些测量的RT可能是异常值,要么太快,要么太慢,无法反映感兴趣的任务相关处理。已经使用了许多特设程序来识别这些异常值,以排除在进一步分析之外,但尚未系统地比较这些方法的准确性。本研究使用四个真实RT的巨大数据集比较了58种不同的异常值排除程序(OEP)的性能。结果表明,这些OEP可能弊大于利,因为它们错误地识别了异常值,增加了噪声,引入了偏差,并且通常降低了统计能力。结果表明,RT研究人员不应在主要分析之前自动应用这些OEP中的任何一个来清理他们的RT数据。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Outlier exclusion procedures for reaction time analysis: The cures are generally worse than the disease.

A methodological problem in most reaction time (RT) tasks is that some measured RTs may be outliers, being either too fast or too slow to reflect the task-related processing of interest. Numerous ad hoc procedures have been used to identify these outliers for exclusion from further analyses, but the accuracies of these methods have not been systematically compared. The present study compared the performance of 58 different outlier exclusion procedures (OEPs) using four huge datasets of real RTs. The results suggest that these OEPs are likely to do more harm than good, because they incorrectly identify outliers, increase noise, introduce bias, and generally reduce statistical power. The results suggest that RT researchers should not automatically apply any of these OEPs to clean their RT data prior to the main analyses. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.
期刊最新文献
Bypassing versus correcting misinformation: Efficacy and fundamental processes. Risky hybrid foraging: The impact of risk, reward value, and prevalence on foraging behavior in hybrid visual search. Shortcuts to insincerity: Texting abbreviations seem insincere and not worth answering. Confidence regulates feedback processing during human probabilistic learning. Does affective processing require awareness? On the use of the Perceptual Awareness Scale in response priming research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1