Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42256493›Full record

ArticleWellcome open research2024

Enhancing experimental design through Bayes factor design analysis: insights from multi-armed bandit tasks.

Sarah Schreiber, Danielle Hewitt, Ben Seymour, Wako Yoshida

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Wellcome open research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

4 authors.

Sarah SchreiberInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, OX37DQ, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0009-7827-9682
Danielle HewittWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, OX39DU, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2245-4962
Ben SeymourInstitute of Biomedical Engineering, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, OX37DQ, UK.
Wako YoshidaWellcome Centre for Integrative Neuroimaging, University of Oxford, Oxford, England, OX39DU, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9273-1617

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Bayesian statistics offers a flexible framework that supports iterative updating of hypotheses and the incorporation of prior information, amongst other advantages. Although well established for retrospective analysis, the application of Bayesian methods to prospective analysis is less well developed, especially when used in combination with computational model-based analysis of behavioural data in cognitive neuroscience. It is therefore important to establish effective methods for testing and optimising experimental designs for these purposes. One framework for a prospective approach is Bayes factor design analysis (BFDA), which can be used alongside latent variable modelling to evaluate and visualise the distribution of Bayes factors for a given experimental design. This paper provides a tutorial-style analysis combining BFDA with latent variable modelling to evaluate exploration-exploitation trade-offs in the binary multi-armed bandit task (MAB). This is a complex example of human decision-making with which to investigate the feasibility of differentiating latent variables between groups as a function of different design parameters. We examined how sample size, number of games per participant and effect size affect the strength of evidence supporting a difference in means between two groups. To further assess how these parameters affect experimental results, metrics of error were evaluated. Using simulations, we demonstrated how BFDA can be combined with latent variable modelling to evaluate and optimise parameter estimation of exploration in the MAB task, allowing inference of the mean degree of random exploration in a population, as well as between groups. However, BFDA indicated that, even with large samples and effect sizes, there may be some circumstances where there is a high likelihood of errors and a low probability of detecting evidence in favour of a difference when comparing random exploration between two groups performing the bandit task. In summary, we show how BFDA can prospectively inform design and power of human behavioural tasks.

Indexed as

Bayes factordecision-makingdesign analysisdesign calculationexplorationsample sizestatistical evidence

Identifiers

PMID42256493
PMCPMC13241856

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.