4.5 Article

Two replications of Raymond, Shapiro, and Arnell (1992), The Attentional Blink

期刊

BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS
卷 53, 期 2, 页码 656-668

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.3758/s13428-020-01457-6

关键词

Attentional blink; Replication

资金

  1. University of Padova within the CRUI-CARE Agreement

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The adoption of new research practices can improve the replicability of experimental research, as demonstrated through a replication project on the attentional blink phenomenon, showing the effectiveness of these methods.
In order to improve the trustworthiness of our science, several new research practices have been suggested, including preregistration, large statistical power, availability of research data and materials, new statistical standards, and the replication of experiments. We conducted a replication project on an original phenomenon that was discovered more than 25 years ago, namely the attentional blink (Raymond, Shapiro, & Arnell, Human Perception and Performance, 18(3), 849-860, 1992), which has been conceptually replicated hundreds of times with major variations. Here, we ran two identical experiments, adopting the new practices and closely reproducing the original experiment. The two experiments were run by different research groups in different countries and laboratories with different participants. Experiment 1 shared remarkable similarities (in magnitude and duration of the effect) with the original study, but also some differences (the overall accuracy of participants, the timing of the effect, and lag-1 sparing). Experts interviewed to evaluate our results stressed the similarities rather than the differences. Experiment 2 replicated nearly identically the results observed in Experiment 1. These findings show that the adoption of new research practices improves the replicability of experimental research and opens the door for a quantitative and direct comparison of the results collected across different laboratories and countries.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据