无意识心理过程研究中的凯利悖论和强度偏斜。

IF 3.2 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Psychonomic Bulletin & Review Pub Date : 2024-10-15 DOI:10.3758/s13423-024-02578-1
Daryl Y H Lee, Christopher J Berry, David R Shanks
{"title":"无意识心理过程研究中的凯利悖论和强度偏斜。","authors":"Daryl Y H Lee, Christopher J Berry, David R Shanks","doi":"10.3758/s13423-024-02578-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>A widely adopted approach in research on unconscious perception and cognition involves contrasting behavioral or neural responses to stimuli that have been presented to participants (e.g., old items in a memory test) against those that have not (e.g., new items), and which participants do not discriminate in their conscious reports. We demonstrate that such contrasts do not license inferences about unconscious processing, for two reasons. One is Kelley's Paradox, a statistical phenomenon caused by regression to the mean. In the inevitable presence of measurement error, true awareness of the contrasted stimuli is not equal. The second is a consequence, within the framework of Signal Detection Theory, of unequal skewness in the strengths of target and nontarget items. The fallacious reasoning that underlies the employment of this contrast methodology is illustrated through both computational simulations and formal analysis, and its prevalence is documented in a narrative literature review. Additionally, a recognition memory experiment is reported which tests and confirms a prediction of our analysis of the contrast methodology and corroborates the susceptibility of this method to artifacts attributable to Kelley's Paradox and strength skewness. This work challenges the validity of conclusions drawn from this popular analytic approach.</p>","PeriodicalId":20763,"journal":{"name":"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Kelley's Paradox and strength skewness in research on unconscious mental processes.\",\"authors\":\"Daryl Y H Lee, Christopher J Berry, David R Shanks\",\"doi\":\"10.3758/s13423-024-02578-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>A widely adopted approach in research on unconscious perception and cognition involves contrasting behavioral or neural responses to stimuli that have been presented to participants (e.g., old items in a memory test) against those that have not (e.g., new items), and which participants do not discriminate in their conscious reports. We demonstrate that such contrasts do not license inferences about unconscious processing, for two reasons. One is Kelley's Paradox, a statistical phenomenon caused by regression to the mean. In the inevitable presence of measurement error, true awareness of the contrasted stimuli is not equal. The second is a consequence, within the framework of Signal Detection Theory, of unequal skewness in the strengths of target and nontarget items. The fallacious reasoning that underlies the employment of this contrast methodology is illustrated through both computational simulations and formal analysis, and its prevalence is documented in a narrative literature review. Additionally, a recognition memory experiment is reported which tests and confirms a prediction of our analysis of the contrast methodology and corroborates the susceptibility of this method to artifacts attributable to Kelley's Paradox and strength skewness. This work challenges the validity of conclusions drawn from this popular analytic approach.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":20763,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-15\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-024-02578-1\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychonomic Bulletin & Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-024-02578-1","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在无意识感知和认知的研究中,一种被广泛采用的方法是将参与者对已出现过的刺激物(如记忆测试中的旧项目)的行为或神经反应与未出现过的刺激物(如新项目)的行为或神经反应进行对比,参与者在有意识的报告中不会对这些刺激物进行区分。我们证明,出于两个原因,这种对比并不允许推断无意识加工。其一是凯利悖论(Kelley's Paradox),这是一种由均值回归引起的统计现象。在测量误差不可避免地存在的情况下,对对比刺激的真实意识是不相等的。其次,在信号检测理论的框架内,目标项目和非目标项目的强度偏度不相等也会导致这一结果。我们通过计算模拟和形式分析来说明采用这种对比方法的谬误推理,并通过文献综述对其普遍性进行了记录。此外,还报告了一个识别记忆实验,该实验检验并证实了我们对对比方法分析的预测,并证实了这种方法容易受到凯利悖论和强度偏斜的影响。这项工作对这种流行的分析方法得出的结论的有效性提出了质疑。
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
Kelley's Paradox and strength skewness in research on unconscious mental processes.

A widely adopted approach in research on unconscious perception and cognition involves contrasting behavioral or neural responses to stimuli that have been presented to participants (e.g., old items in a memory test) against those that have not (e.g., new items), and which participants do not discriminate in their conscious reports. We demonstrate that such contrasts do not license inferences about unconscious processing, for two reasons. One is Kelley's Paradox, a statistical phenomenon caused by regression to the mean. In the inevitable presence of measurement error, true awareness of the contrasted stimuli is not equal. The second is a consequence, within the framework of Signal Detection Theory, of unequal skewness in the strengths of target and nontarget items. The fallacious reasoning that underlies the employment of this contrast methodology is illustrated through both computational simulations and formal analysis, and its prevalence is documented in a narrative literature review. Additionally, a recognition memory experiment is reported which tests and confirms a prediction of our analysis of the contrast methodology and corroborates the susceptibility of this method to artifacts attributable to Kelley's Paradox and strength skewness. This work challenges the validity of conclusions drawn from this popular analytic approach.

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
6.70
自引率
2.90%
发文量
165
期刊介绍: The journal provides coverage spanning a broad spectrum of topics in all areas of experimental psychology. The journal is primarily dedicated to the publication of theory and review articles and brief reports of outstanding experimental work. Areas of coverage include cognitive psychology broadly construed, including but not limited to action, perception, & attention, language, learning & memory, reasoning & decision making, and social cognition. We welcome submissions that approach these issues from a variety of perspectives such as behavioral measurements, comparative psychology, development, evolutionary psychology, genetics, neuroscience, and quantitative/computational modeling. We particularly encourage integrative research that crosses traditional content and methodological boundaries.
期刊最新文献
Influence of competition on motor inhibitory control: Evidence from a go/no-go task. Visual statistical learning requires attention. Prediction in reading: A review of predictability effects, their theoretical implications, and beyond. Illusory truth effect across languages and scripts. Real-world estimation taps into basic numeric abilities.
×
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