Theory of Probability.

Jeffreys, Harold; Morán, P. A. P.; Chatfield, Chris

doi:10.2307/2530899

Cited by 255 publications

(256 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

250

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is due to the fact that null hypothesis significance testing only allows us to reject the null hypothesis, but not to state positive evidence in favor of it. In order to ensure that our data genuinely represent evidence that orthographic information from one word does not influence the processing of another word, we conducted a Bayesian analysis on the data for selected measures from both Experiment 1 and Experiment 2, by calculating Bayes factors (Jeffreys, 1961;Kass & Raftery, 1995;Rouder, Morey, Speckman, & Province, 2012). Bayes factors allow us to assess the extent to which a data set supports one of two competing hypotheses (e.g.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is orthographic information from multiple parafoveal words processed in parallel: An eye-tracking study.

Cutter

Drieghe

Liversedge

2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the current study we investigated whether orthographic information available from 1 upcoming parafoveal word influences the processing of another parafoveal word. Across 2 experiments we used the boundary paradigm (Rayner, 1975) to present participants with an identity preview of the 2 words after the boundary (e.g., hot pan), a preview in which 2 letters were transposed between these words (e.g., hop tan), or a preview in which the same 2 letters were substituted (e.g., hob fan). We hypothesized that if these 2 words were processed in parallel in the parafovea then we may observe significant preview benefits for the condition in which the letters were transposed between words relative to the condition in which the letters were substituted. However, no such effect was observed, with participants fixating the words for the same amount of time in both conditions. This was the case both when the transposition was made between the final and first letter of the 2 words (e.g., hop tan as a preview of hot pan; Experiment 1) and when the transposition maintained within word letter position (e.g., pit hop as a preview of hit pop; Experiment 2). The implications of these findings are considered in relation to serial and parallel lexical processing during reading. Public Significance StatementThe findings of the present study suggest that readers of English only process letter information from 1 word at a time. Participants did not read any faster when 2 letters had been swapped between 2 upcoming words prior to participants looking directly at them (e.g., sit pea instead of sip tea) than when these same 2 letters had been replaced with alternative letters (e.g., six sea). These findings demonstrate that the human language processing system tends to identify words 1 at a time in serial order, rather than identifying multiple words at the same time.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is orthographic information from multiple parafoveal words processed in parallel: An eye-tracking study.

Cutter

Drieghe

Liversedge

2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As shown in the first and second rows of Table 1, the answer is yes: The overall effect size (Hedges’ g ) is 0.09, combined z = 6.33, p = 1.2 × 10 -10 . The Bayesian BF value is 5.1 × 10 9 , greatly exceeding the criterion value of 100 that is considered to constitute “decisive evidence” for the experimental hypothesis ( Jeffreys, 1998). Moreover, the BF value is robust across a wide range of the scaling factor r , ranging from a high value of 5.1 × 10 9 when we set r = 0.1 to a low value of 2.0 × 10 9 when r = 1.0.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…Jeffreys (1998) has suggested the following verbal labels for interpreting BF levels of p (H 1 )/ p (H 0 ): BF = 1 – 3: Worth no more than a bare mentionBF = 3 – 10: Substantial evidence for H 1 BF = 10 – 30: Strong evidence for H 1 BF = 30 – 100: Very Strong evidence for H 1 BF > 100: Decisive evidence for H 1 …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Feeling the future: A meta-analysis of 90 experiments on the anomalous anticipation of random future events

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 2011, one of the authors (DJB) published a report of nine experiments in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology purporting to demonstrate that an individual’s cognitive and affective responses can be influenced by randomly selected stimulus events that do not occur until after his or her responses have already been made and recorded, a generalized variant of the phenomenon traditionally denoted by the term precognition. To encourage replications, all materials needed to conduct them were made available on request. We here report a meta-analysis of 90 experiments from 33 laboratories in 14 countries which yielded an overall effect greater than 6 sigma, z = 6.40, p = 1.2 × 10-10 with an effect size (Hedges’ g) of 0.09. A Bayesian analysis yielded a Bayes Factor of 1.4 × 109, greatly exceeding the criterion value of 100 for “decisive evidence” in support of the experimental hypothesis. When DJB’s original experiments are excluded, the combined effect size for replications by independent investigators is 0.06, z = 4.16, p = 1.1 × 10-5, and the BF value is 3,853, again exceeding the criterion for “decisive evidence.” The number of potentially unretrieved experiments required to reduce the overall effect size of the complete database to a trivial value of 0.01 is 544, and seven of eight additional statistical tests support the conclusion that the database is not significantly compromised by either selection bias or by “p-hacking”—the selective suppression of findings or analyses that failed to yield statistical significance. P-curve analysis, a recently introduced statistical technique, estimates the true effect size of our database to be 0.20, virtually identical to the effect size of DJB’s original experiments (0.22) and the closely related “presentiment” experiments (0.21). We discuss the controversial status of precognition and other anomalous effects collectively known as psi.

show abstract

“…That is, when using a Frequentist approach, failures to reject the null-hypothesis are inconclusive; they indicate only lack of evidence for the alternative hypothesis but do not 21 CAN TRAINING CHANGE ATTENTIONAL BREADTH allow estimation of evidence for the null-hypothesis (Kruschke, 2011;Mulder & Wagenmakers, in press). In contrast, a Bayesian approach allows comparison of evidence between different models as it relies on likelihood ratios, allowing us to accumulate evidence in favor of the null-hypothesis (Jeffreys, 1961). 4 To determine how confident we can be that attentional breadth was not successfully broadened using the one-or multisession attentional breadth training, we re-analyzed our attentional breadth assessment data using two-sided Bayesian t-tests.…”

Section: Bayesian Comparison Of the Null And Experimental Hypothesesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…4 As such, the Bayes Factor (BF) -i.e., the ratio of the probability of the data given one hypothesis compared to the probability of the data given another hypothesis -allows to draw conclusions concerning the strength of evidence for the alternative hypothesis [BF (10) (Jeffreys, 1961;Wagenmakers, Wetzels, Borsboom, & van der Maas, 2011). Beck et al, 1996); PA and NA state, positive and negative affect (PANAS; Watson et al, 1988).…”

Section: Footnotesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can training change attentional breadth? Failure to find transfer effects

Fang

Hoorelbeke

Bruyneel

et al. 2017

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recently, there is increasing interest in the causal relationship between attentional breadth and emotion regulation. To test this causal relationship, attentional breadth needs to be manipulated stringently. The aim of the current research was to establish whether visual attentional breadth could be manipulated through experimental training procedures. We conducted two single-session training experiments and one multiple-session training experiment, all of which contained pre-and post-training assessments to test the direct transfer effects of training on attentional breadth construed in different measures. For the first single-session training (Experiment 1), no training effects were found to transfer to the subsequent attentional breadth measures in terms of global-local processing preference. For the second single-session training (Experiment 2) and the five-day training (Experiment 3) which combined both trainings from Experiment 1 and 2, there were some indications that attentional breadth can be decreased, but there was no evidence that it could be increased neither in terms of global-local processing preference nor in terms of scope of visual perception. Bayesian analysis confirmed the null-hypothesis of no increase in attentional breadth through delivery of these training procedures. Therefore, our findings do not support the hypothesis that training variants of the Global-Local attentional breadth task or of the visuospatial attentional breadth task can stably alter attentional breadth in healthy students.Possible explanations and implications are discussed.

show abstract

Theory of Probability.

Cited by 255 publications

References 0 publications

Is orthographic information from multiple parafoveal words processed in parallel: An eye-tracking study.

Is orthographic information from multiple parafoveal words processed in parallel: An eye-tracking study.

Feeling the future: A meta-analysis of 90 experiments on the anomalous anticipation of random future events

Can training change attentional breadth? Failure to find transfer effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About