Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30083122›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2018

Applying the Model-Comparison Approach to Test Specific Research Hypotheses in Psychophysical Research Using the Palamedes Toolbox.

Nicolaas Prins, Frederick A A Kingdom

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05004649 (The Effects of Stimulus Variability in Natural Visual Scenes), which is not on this map. Cited by 226 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
226citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

NCT05004649 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2021, after this paper: background citation

The Effects of Stimulus Variability in Natural Visual Scenes

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of PennsylvaniaRan2021 to 2022Enrolled19ConditionsVisual PerceptionArmsPsychophysical task
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

226 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Visual Responsivity in Autism: Measuring Visual Responses in Autistic and Non-Autistic Adults Using Psychophysics, fMRI, and EEG.Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research · 2026
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article

166 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Nicolaas PrinsDepartment of Psychology, University of Mississippi, Oxford, MS, United States.
Frederick A A KingdomMcGill Vision Research Unit, Department of Ophthalmology, McGill University, Montréal, QC, Canada.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the social sciences it is common practice to test specific theoretically motivated research hypotheses using formal statistical procedures. Typically, students in these disciplines are trained in such methods starting at an early stage in their academic tenure. On the other hand, in psychophysical research, where parameter estimates are generally obtained using a maximum-likelihood (ML) criterion and data do not lend themselves well to the least-squares methods taught in introductory courses, it is relatively uncommon to see formal model comparisons performed. Rather, it is common practice to estimate the parameters of interest (e.g., detection thresholds) and their standard errors individually across the different experimental conditions and to 'eyeball' whether the observed pattern of parameter estimates supports or contradicts some proposed hypothesis. We believe that this is at least in part due to a lack of training in the proper methodology as well as a lack of available software to perform such model comparisons when ML estimators are used. We introduce here a relatively new toolbox of Matlab routines called Palamedes which allows users to perform sophisticated model comparisons. In Palamedes, we implement the model-comparison approach to hypothesis testing. This approach allows researchers considerable flexibility in targeting specific research hypotheses. We discuss in a non-technical manner how this method can be used to perform statistical model comparisons when ML estimators are used. With Palamedes we hope to make sophisticated statistical model comparisons available to researchers who may not have the statistical background or the programming skills to perform such model comparisons from scratch. Note that while Palamedes is specifically geared toward psychophysical data, the core ideas behind the model-comparison approach that our paper discusses generalize to any field in which statistical hypotheses are tested.

Indexed as

model comparisonspsychometricspsychophysicssoftwarestatistics

Identifiers

PMID30083122
PMCPMC6064978

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.