Rich stimulus sampling for between-subjects designs improves model selection

Behavior Research Methods

Volumn 44, Issue 1, 2012, Pages 176-188

  Young, Michael E ^a   Cole, James J ^a   Sutherland, Steven C ^a  

^a SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Experimental design; Model selection; Nonlinear; Parameter estimation; Stimulus sampling

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; COMPUTER SIMULATION; METHODOLOGY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; STATISTICAL MODEL;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; MODELS, STATISTICAL; MONTE CARLO METHOD; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84856859275     PISSN: 1554351X     EISSN: 15543528     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13428-011-0133-5     Document Type: Article

References (30)

1. Atkinson, A. C., & Donev, A. N. (1992). Optimum experimental designs. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Berger, M. P. F. (1994). D-optimal sequential sampling designs for item response theory models. Journal of Educational Statistics, 19, 43-56.
3. Berger, M. P. F., King, C. Y. J., & Wong, W. K. (2000). Minimax D-optimal designs for item response theory models. Psychometrika, 65, 377-390.
4. Box, G. E. P., & Hill, W. J. (1967). Discrimination among mechanistic models. Technometrics, 9, 57-71.
5. Brunswik, E. (1947). Systematic and representative design of psychological experiments; with results in physical and social perception. Berkeley: University of California Press.
6. Brunswik, E. (1955). Representative design and probabilistic theory in a functional psychology. Psychological Review, 62, 193-217.
7. Cavagnaro, D. R., Myung, J. I., Pitt, M. A., & Kujala, J. (2010). Adaptive design optimization: A mutual information-based approach to model discrimination in cognitive science. Neural Computation, 22, 887-905.
8. Cavagnaro, D. R., Pitt, M. A., & Myung, J. I. (2011). Model disccrimination through adaptive experimentation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 18, 204-210.
9. Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
10. Dhami, M. K., Hertwig, R., & Hoffrage, U. (2004). The role of representative design in an ecological approach to cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 130, 959-988.
11. Ford, I., Titterington, D. M., & Kitsos, C. P. (1989). Recent advances in nonlinear design. Technometrics, 31, 49-60.
12. Gelman, A., & Hill, J. (2006). Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. New York: Cambridge University Press.
13. Hill, W. J., Hunter, W. G., & Wichern, D. W. (1968). A joint design criterion for the dual problem of model discrimination and parameter estimation. Technometrics, 10, 145-160.
14. Irwin, J. R., & McClelland, G. H. (2003). Negative consequences of dichotimizing continuous predictor variables. Journal of Marketing Research, 40, 366-371.
15. Leek, M. R. (2001). Adaptive procedures in psychophysical research. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 63, 1279-1292.
16. Maxwell, S. E., & Delaney, H. D. (1993). Bivariate median splits and spurious statistical significance. Psychological Bulletin, 113, 181-190.
17. McKerchar, T. L., Green, L., Myerson, J., Pickford, T. S., Hill, J. C., & Stout, S. C. (2009). A comparison of four models of delay discounting in humans. Behavioural Processes, 81, 256-259.
18. Myung, J. I., & Pitt, M. A. (2009). Optimal experimental design for model discrimination. Psychological Review, 116, 499-518.
19. Passos, V. L., & Berger, M. P. F. (2004). Maximin calibration designs for the nominal response model: An empirical evaluation. Applied Psychological Measurement, 28, 72-87.
20. Pinheiro, J. C., & Bates, D. M. (2004). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. New York: Springer.
21. Roberts, S., & Pashler, H. (2000). How persuasive is a good fit? A comment on theory testing. Psychological Review, 107, 358-367.
22. Rouder, J. N., Lu, J., Speckman, P., Sun, D., & Jiang, Y. (2005). A hierarchical model for estimating response time distributions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 195-223.
23. Rubin, D. C., & Wenzel, A. E. (1996). One hundered years of forgetting: A quantitative description of retention. Psychological Review, 103, 734-760.
24. Shampanier, K., Mazar, N., & Ariely, D. (2007). Zero as a special price: The true value of free products. Marketing Science, 26, 742-757.
25. Shull, R. L. (1991). Mathematical description of operant behavior: An introduction. In I. H. Iversen & K. A. Lattal (Eds.), Experimental analysis of behavior (Vol. 2, pp. 243-282). New York: Elsevier.
26. Steinberg, D. M., & Hunter, W. G. (1984). Experimental design: Review and comment. Technometrics, 26, 71-97.
27. van Zandt, T. (2000). How to fit a response time distribution. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 424-465.
28. Vermeulen, B., Goos, P., & Vandebroek, M. (2008). Models and optimal designs for conjoint choice experiments including a no-choice option. International Journal of Research in Marketing, 25, 94-103.
29. Wagenmakers, E.-J., & Farrell, S. (2004). AIC model selection using Akaike weights. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 192-196.
30. Young, M. E., Clark, M. H., Goffus, A., & Hoane, M. R. (2009). Mixed effects modeling of Morris water maze data: Advantages and cautionary notes. Learning and Motivation, 40, 160-177.