ArticlePeerJ2021
Additive and multiplicative probabilistic models of infant looking times.
Article in PeerJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Perceptual and conceptual novelty independently guide infant looking behaviour: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Nature human behaviour · 2024Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Additive and multiplicative regression models of habituation were compared regarding the fit to looking times from a habituation experiment with infants aged between 3 and 11 months. In contrast to earlier studies, the current study considered multiple probability distributions, namely Weibull, gamma, lognormal and normal distribution. In the habituation experiment the type of contrast between the habituation and the test trial was varied (luminance, color or orientation contrast), crossed with the number of habituation trials (1, 3, 5, or 7 habituation trials) and crossed with three age cohorts (4, 7, 10 months). The initial mean LT to dark stimuli (around 3.7 s) was considerably shorter than the mean LT to green and gray stimuli (around 5 s). Infants showed the strongest dishabituation to changes from dark to bright (luminance contrast) and weak-to-no dishabituation to a 90-degrees rotation of the gray stimuli (orientation contrast). The dishabituation was stronger after five and seven habituation trials, but the result was not statistically robust. The gamma distribution showed the best fit in terms of log-likelihood and mean absolute error and the best predictive performance. Furthermore, the gamma distribution showed small correlations between parameters relative to other models. The normal additive model showed an inferior fit and medium correlations between the parameters. In particular, the positive correlation between the initial looking time (LT) and the habituation rate was likely responsible for a different interpretation relative to the multiplicative models of the main effect of age on the habituation rate. Otherwise, the additive and multiplicative models provided similar statistical conclusions. The performance of the model versions without pooling and with partial pooling across participants (also called random-effects, multi-level or hierarchical models) were compared. The latter type of models showed worse data fit but more precise predictions and reduced correlations between the parameters. The performance of model variants with auto-regressive time structures were explored but showed considerably worse fit. The performance of quadratic models that allowed non-monotonic changes in LTs were investigated as well. However, when fitted with LT data, these models did not produce non-monotonic change in LTs. The study underscores the utility of partial-pooling models in terms of providing more accurate predictions. Further, it agrees with previous research in that a multiplicative LT model is preferable. Nevertheless, the current results suggest that the impact of the choice of an additive model on the statistical inference is less dramatic then previously assumed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.