4.5 Article

Assessing bimodality to detect the presence of a dual cognitive process

期刊

BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS
卷 45, 期 1, 页码 83-97

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.3758/s13428-012-0225-x

关键词

Bimodality; Response distribution; Dual-process models; Single-process models; Mouse-tracking

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [F31-MH092000] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Division Of Behavioral and Cognitive Sci
  3. Direct For Social, Behav & Economic Scie [0826825] Funding Source: National Science Foundation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Researchers have long sought to distinguish between single-process and dual-process cognitive phenomena, using responses such as reaction times and, more recently, hand movements. Analysis of a response distribution's modality has been crucial in detecting the presence of dual processes, because they tend to introduce bimodal features. Rarely, however, have bimodality measures been systematically evaluated. We carried out tests of readily available bimodality measures that any researcher may easily employ: the bimodality coefficient (BC), Hartigan's dip statistic (HDS), and the difference in Akaike's information criterion between one-component and two-component distribution models (AIC(diff)). We simulated distributions containing two response populations and examined the influences of (1) the distances between populations, (2) proportions of responses, (3) the amount of positive skew present, and (4) sample size. Distance always had a stronger effect than did proportion, and the effects of proportion greatly differed across the measures. Skew biased the measures by increasing bimodality detection, in some cases leading to anomalous interactive effects. BC and HDS were generally convergent, but a number of important discrepancies were found. AICdiff was extremely sensitive to bimodality and identified nearly all distributions as bimodal. However, all measures served to detect the presence of bimodality in comparison to unimodal simulations. We provide a validation with experimental data, discuss methodological and theoretical implications, and make recommendations regarding the choice of analysis.

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