Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37957433›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2024

Specificity and sensitivity of the fixed-point test for binary mixture distributions.

Joaquina Couto, Maël Lebreton, Leendert van Maanen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

3 authors.

Joaquina CoutoDepartment of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, Netherlands. j.m.ferreiracouto@uu.nl.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1658-4680
Maël LebretonSwiss Center for Affective Sciences, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
Leendert van MaanenDepartment of Experimental Psychology, Utrecht University, Utrecht, Netherlands.

Funding

EPA EP-D-15-015Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia SFRH/BD/132089/2017Nederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek Grant 451-15-015
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

When two cognitive processes contribute to a behavioral output-each process producing a specific distribution of the behavioral variable of interest-and when the mixture proportion of these two processes varies as a function of an experimental condition, a common density point should be present in the observed distributions of the data across said conditions. In principle, one can statistically test for the presence (or absence) of a fixed point in experimental data to provide evidence in favor of (or against) the presence of a mixture of processes, whose proportions are affected by an experimental manipulation. In this paper, we provide an empirical diagnostic of this test to detect a mixture of processes. We do so using resampling of real experimental data under different scenarios, which mimic variations in the experimental design suspected to affect the sensitivity and specificity of the fixed-point test (i.e., mixture proportion, time on task, and sample size). Resampling such scenarios with real data allows us to preserve important features of data which are typically observed in real experiments while maintaining tight control over the properties of the resampled scenarios. This is of particular relevance considering such stringent assumptions underlying the fixed-point test. With this paper, we ultimately aim at validating the fixed-point property of binary mixture data and at providing some performance metrics to researchers aiming at testing the fixed-point property on their experimental data.

Indexed as

BehaviorBehavioral SciencesCognitive ScienceModels, BiologicalAdolescentBehavior Rating ScaleFemaleHumansMaleTimeYoung AdultBinary mixture dataEmpirical validationFixed-point property

Identifiers

PMID37957433
PMCPMC11133060

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.