ArticleBehavior research methods2026
Comparing effect latencies in the visual world paradigm: Monte Carlo simulations to assess resampling-based procedures.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
Abstract
In a series of Monte Carlo simulation studies, we evaluated the power and Type I error rates of resampling-based procedures for comparing effect latencies between groups in the visual world paradigm (VWP). Resampling-based methods, while versatile, are known to fail in certain cases. Therefore, validation of such methods through simulation is crucial. We compared permutation- and bootstrapping-based tests combined with different methods for measuring effect latency while manipulating sample size and true effect size. Alongside previously used latency measures, we tested new measures involving the application of an effect size threshold. Simulations were based on existing VWP datasets representing different effect types (preferential looks triggered by lexical vs. grammatical cues, cohort competitor effects in word recognition) and data collection methods (infrared- vs. webcam-based eye tracking). A total of 156,000 simulations were conducted across five studies, involving 548 million resampled datasets. The main findings are as follows: (1) With sufficient sample sizes, tests were effective in detecting latency differences of 200-300 ms in sentence processing tasks, and as small as 100 ms in word recognition. (2) The permutation test and bootstrapped percentile CIs exhibited the highest overall power without inflation of Type I error rates. (3) Applying an effect size threshold in latency estimation led to consistent increases in statistical power. (4) Resampling by participant was robust to increases in cross-subject variability;in contrast, bootstrapping within participants and time bins led to elevated Type I error rates. Based on these results, we offer recommendations for using non-parametric resampling-based procedures to compare group latencies in VWP experiments.
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.