JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for SPM Archives


SPM Archives

SPM Archives


SPM@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

SPM Home

SPM Home

SPM  July 2009

SPM July 2009

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Best model setup

From:

"Benjamin, Christopher" <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Benjamin, Christopher

Date:

Mon, 20 Jul 2009 12:07:17 -0400

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (83 lines)

Thanks Jonathan (& everyone)

More feedback would be very much appreciated!  I'm sure this is relatively straightforward and would love someone to shed some light.

I should have made my question more explicit (and clearer).  I have stimulus types A and B, both broken into correct & incorrect responses.  Type B is presented in 3 different colors.  I.E.:
A-correct, A-incorrect, B1-correct, B1-incorrect, B2-correct, B2-incorrect, B3-correct, B3-incorrect.

I am only interested in A-correct and B-correct [collapsing across color] but don't know how to model it.

Regarding the first model type with regressors
A-correct; A-incorrect;
B-correct; B-incorrect;
Color 1; Color 2; Color 3
I think the main problem here is that it's degenerate - B-correct + B-incorrect = Color 1 + Color 2 + Color 3

Regarding the second:
A-correct; A-incorrect;
B1-correct; B1-incorrect;
B2-correct; B2-incorrect;
B3-correct; B3-incorrect;
I agree I can ask the question I want but my power is drastically reduced, which is far from ideal.


Does this make sense?  It seems like the best way is to ignore the effect of color altogether - if I model only type A and B and ignore color it would be best in terms of power, but I'm ignoring predictable effects I should model.  It seems like a lot of people routinely do this in one form or another, however (e.g., model stimuli but ignore responses; do not model feedback trials etc.).  In a different study which is quite similar at a practical level I've seen someone do the equivalent of compare type A to type B-color 1 and ignore B responses in the other colors altogether (which I think is very questionable, since they share the same cognitive process).

I'd really love some feedback - I'd hate to hit problems when I eventually try to publish.

Thanks for your time

Christopher



On 18/7/09 1:41 PM, "Jonathan Peelle" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Christopher

On Fri, Jul 17, 2009 at 2:11 AM, Christopher
Benjamin<[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Hi, I'm modelling a task in which participants perform the same cognitive task on a number
> of stimuli which differ only in their color.  I'm having trouble working out the best way to
> model this and would love feedback.
>
> I have stimuli of four different colors, with responses to each color split into correct and
> incorrect responses.

What question are you interested in asking of the data?  That will be
helpful in informing your choice of model.


> A. If I consider modelling the process and then the color separately [i.e., regressors (1)
> correct, (2) incorrect, (3-6) color], I think I'm likely to end up with a degenerate design.

In this setup, the first regressor will model the activity in common
across all correct trials, regardless of what color items were
presented in.  The color regressors, in this model, would then tell
you how activity associated with each color differed from the common
activity modeled by regressor 1.

Note that as you have it here the color regressors will pick up
activity for both correct and incorrect trials, which may not be what
you want....you might want to split the colors by correct/incorrect.


> B. If I model correct and incorrect responses by color [(1)blue-correct, (2)blue-incorrect,
> (3)purple-correct...(8)] it seems intuitively wrong - I'm splitting variance for a cognitive
> process that is almost identical between four different regressors (for both correct and
> incorrect responses).  I also think I lose a lot of power in each regressor's estimate.

On the one hand you are correct, in that, assuming that blue-correct
and purple-correct share a lot of activity, you're splitting up a
single process, and giving yourself less data for each regressor.
However, note that in this case, doing a contrast across several
columns of your design matrix (i.e. the four columns coding for
correct responses) should give you the same answer (i.e. the average
activation for this process) as approach A above.  The only caveat
would be if the number of correct/incorrect trials differs much as a
function of color, then you will get slightly different weightings
depending on which approach you take.

Hope this helps,
Jonathan

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager