SOS! An algorithm and software for the stochastic optimization of stimuli

Behavior Research Methods

Volumn 44, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 675-705

  Armstrong, Blair C ^a   Watson, Christine E ^b   Plaut, David C ^a  

^a CARNEGIE MELLON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Constraint satisfaction; External validity; Factorial designs; Internal validity; Monte Carlo simulation; Multiple mixed effects regression designs; Stimulus selection; Stochastic optimization

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PSYCHOLOGY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICS;

ALGORITHMS; HUMANS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SOFTWARE; STOCHASTIC PROCESSES;

EID: 84865657857     PISSN: 1554351X     EISSN: 15543528     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13428-011-0182-9     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Ackley, D. H., Hinton, G. E., & Sejnowski, T. J. (1985). A learning algorithm for Boltzmann machines. Cognitive Science, 9, 147-169.
2. Armstrong, B. C. (2007). Comprehending ambiguous words: Computational and empirical investigations. Masters thesis, National Archives of Canada.
3. Armstrong, B. C., & Plaut, D. C. (2008). Settling dynamics in distributed networks explain task differences in semantic ambiguity effects: Computational and behavioral evidence. In B. C. Love, K. McRae, & V. M. Sloutsky (Eds.), Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 273-278). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
4. Armstrong, B. C., & Plaut, D. C. (2011). Inducing homonymy effects via stimulus quality and (not) nonword difficulty: Implications for models of semantic ambiguity and word recognition. In T. S. L. Carlson & C. Hölscher (Eds.), Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2223-2228). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
5. Baayen, R. H., Davidson, D. J., & Bates, D. M. (2008). Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items. Journal of Memory and Language, 59, 390-412.
6. Balota, D., Cortese, M., Sergent-Marshall, S., Spieler, D., & Yap, M. (2004). Visual word recognition of single-syllable words. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 283-316.
7. Beretta, A., Fiorentino, R., & Poeppel, D. (2005). The effects of homonymy and polysemy on lexical access: An MEG study. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 57-65.
8. Binder, J., Desai, R., Graves, W., & Conant, L. (2009). Where is the semantic system? A critical review and meta-analysis of 120 functional neuroimaging studies. Cerebral Cortex, 19, 2767-2796.
9. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433-436.
10. Brysbaert, M., & New, B. (2009). Moving beyond Kučera and Francis: A critical evaluation of current word frequency norms and the introduction of a new and improved word frequency measure for American English. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 977-990.
11. Bunn, E., Tyler, L., & Moss, H. (1998). Category-specific semantic deficits: The role of familiarity and property type reexamined. Neuropsychology, 12, 367-379.
12. Clark, H. (1973). The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 12, 335-359.
13. Coltheart, M. (1981). The MRC psycholinguistic database. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 33, 497-505.
14. Cortese, M., & Khanna, M. (2007). Age of acquisition predicts naming and lexical-decision performance above and beyond 22 other predictor variables: An analysis of 2, 342 words. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 60, 1072-1082.
15. Cutler, A. (1981). Making up materials is a confounded nuisance, or: Will we able to run any psycholinguistic experiments at all in 1990? Cognition, 10, 65-70.
16. Davis, C. (2005). N-WATCH: A program for deriving neighborhood size and other psycholinguistic statistics. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 37, 65-70.
17. Gernsbacher, M. (1984). Resolving 20 years of inconsistent interactions between lexical familiarity and orthography, concreteness, and polysemy. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 256-281.
18. Gilhooly, K., & Logie, R. (1980). Age-of-acquisition, imagery, concreteness, familiarity, and ambiguity measures for 1, 944 words. Behavior Research Methods, 12, 395-427.
19. Gilhooly, K., & Logie, R. (1982). Word age-of-acquisition and lexical decision making. Acta Psychologia, 50, 21-34.
20. Healy, M. J. R. (1968). Multiple regression with a singular matrix. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series C, 17, 110-117.
21. Hino, Y., & Lupker, S. (1996). Effects of polysemy in lexical decision and naming: An alternative to lexical access accounts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1331-1356.
22. Hinton, G. E., & Sejnowski, T. J. (1986). Learning and relearning in Boltzmann machines. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland, & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Vol. 1: Foundations (pp. 282-317). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23. Kiefer, J., & Wolfowitz, J. (1952). Stochastic estimation of the maximum of a regression function. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 23, 462-466.
24. Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt, C. D., & Vecchi, M. P. (1983). Optimization by simulated annealing. Science, 220, 671-680.
25. Kučera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present-day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
26. Morrison, C., & Ellis, A. (1995). Roles of word frequency and age of acquisition in word naming and lexical decision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 21, 116-133.
27. Paivio, A., Yuille, J., & Madigan, S. (1968). Concreteness, imagery and meaningfulness values for 925 nouns. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 76, 1-25.
28. Patterson, K., & Plaut, D. (2009). Shallow draughts intoxicate the brain: Lessons from cognitive science for cognitive neuropsychology. Topics in Cognitive Science, 1, 39-58.
29. Raaijmakers, J., Schrijnemakers, J., & Gremmen, F. (1999). How to deal with "The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy": Common misconceptions and alternative solutions. Journal of Memory and Language, 41, 416-426.
30. Rodd, J., Gaskell, G., & Marslen-Wilson, W. (2002). Making sense of semantic ambiguity: Semantic competition in lexical access. Journal of Memory and Language, 46, 245-266.
31. Rumelhart, D. E., Smolensky, P., McClelland, J. L., & Hinton, G. E. (1986). Parallel distributed models of schemata and sequential thought processes. In D. E. Rumelhart, J. L. McClelland, & the PDP Research Group (Eds.), Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition. Vol. 2: Psychological and biological models (pp. 7-57). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
32. Salazar, R., Plastino, A., & Toral, R. (2000). Weakly nonextensive thermostatistics and the Ising model with long-range interactions. European Physical Journal B, 17, 679-688.
33. Schilling, H., Rayner, K., & Chumbley, J. (1998). Comparing naming, lexical decision, and eye fixation times: Word frequency effects and individual differences. Memory & Cognition, 26, 1270-1281.
34. Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime, Version 1. 1 [Computer Software].
35. Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6, 174-215.
36. Stanovich, K. E. (1997). How to think straight about psychology (5th ed.). Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
37. van Casteren, M., & Davis, M. (2007). Match: A program to assist in matching the conditions of factorial experiments. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 973-978.
38. Watson, C. E. (2009). Computational and behavioral studies of normal and impaired noun/verb processing. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Carnegie Mellon University.
39. Watson, C. E., & Chatterjee, A. (2012). A bilateral frontoparietal network underlies visuospatial analogical reasoning. NeuroImage, 59, 2831-2838.
40. Woollams, A., Lambon Ralph, M., Plaut, D., & Patterson, K. (2007). SD-squared: On the association between semantic dementia and surface dyslexia. Psychological Review, 114, 316-339.