A student has conducted 2 memory experiments and she would like to
compare performance across the two (at least roughly).    The problem
is that 1 of them was a 2-alternative forced choice test  and the
other is 3-alternative forced choice test (both were judgments of
relative recency).  Chance performance being substantially different
between the two, a direct comparison isn't appropriate.

Does anybody have a suggestion to correct for chance?  I thought of
simply subtracting chance from each subject's score but I didn't know
if that is acceptable or if there is a better idea.

Thanks kindly

Patrick

**********************
Patrick O. Dolan, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor
Department of Psychology
Drew University
Madison, NJ  07940
973-408-3558
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
**********************
----- Original Message -----
From: "Gary Klatsky" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 9:27 AM
Subject: RE: cognition labs


> Hugh
>
> Thanks for the idea. Unfortunately Eprime does not support  video.
The demo
> would have to be independent of that program.  You can purchase
those videos
> (along with other similar ones) from VisCog for $45. That allows use
in
> academic settings.
>
> Gary
>
> Gary J. Klatsky, Ph. D.
> Director, Human Computer Interaction M.A. Program
>
> Department of Psychology                [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Oswego State University (SUNY)       http://www.oswego.edu/~klatsky
> 7060 State Hwy 104W                      Voice: (315) 312-3474
> Oswego, NY 13126                           Fax:   (315) 312-6330
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugh Foley [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 2004 2:54 PM
> To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences
> Subject: Re: cognition labs
>
> Gary, you may want to think about some attention blindness study.
> Students are certainly intrigued.
>
> Mack, A. (2003). Inattentional blindness: Looking without seeing.
> Current Directions, 12, 180-184.
>
> You'd have to come up with your own demos, but I don't think that it
> would be all that difficult. They're fairly emphatic about not
wanting
> you to use the one's at Simon's web page:
>
> http://viscog.beckman.uiuc.edu/djs_lab/demos.html
>
> Hugh
>
> On Mar 23, 2004, at 12:56 PM, Gary Klatsky wrote:
>
> > I didn't receive as many responses as I expected to my email that
> > inquired
> > about cognition labs, there were 4. There may have been one
additional
> > response but I can't seem to locate it
> > Three people indicated that they selected labs from CogLab. One
> > indicated he
> > was using    ePsych (http://epsych.msstate.edu) and also
recommended
> > PsychExps http://www.olemiss.edu/PsychExps/
> >
> > Specific recommended labs were
> > Mental Rotation
> > Change Blindness
> > Muller-Lyer Illusion
> > Ponzo Illusion
> > Poggendorf Illusion
> > Stroop
> > Simple vs choice RT
> > Signal Deteciton
> > Bransford  & Franks (Laundry)
> > Einstellung (Water Jugs)
> > Spreading activation
> > Prototypes
> > Visual search
> > Scanning STM
> > Lexical Decisions
> > Depth of processing
> > Brooks Brooks (selective interference of imagery)
> > Categorical perception of speech.
> >
> > The reason for my question was that I am currently constructing a
> > series of
> > lab exercises using Eprime and wanted to see if there were other
> > exercises
> > that I may have been overlooking
> >
> > My list currently includes
> > Configural Superiority (Pomerantz, Sager & Stoever)
> > Depth of processing
> > Face recognition (retroactive interference)
> > False memories  (Roediger & McDermott)
> > Generation Effect (Slamecka)
> > Local vs Global precedances (Navon)
> > Hemispheric Differences (word vs picture recognition)
> > Mental Rotation
> > Perceptual Matching (Posner)
> > Popout Parallel processing of multielemental displays (Egeth)
> > RT experiements (comparison of simple, go no-go, choice and sr
> > comptatability)
> > Scanning STM
> > Selective Attention (Erikson & Erikson)
> > Serial Position
> > Signal detection
> > Spatial Cuing (Posner)
> > STM Decay (Brown, Peterson)
> > Visual Search (Treisman & Gelade)
> > Word Superiority
> >
> > I am also thinking of a subliminal cuing experiment and will
likely
> > include
> > some variation of Stroop
> >
> > I had been happy with CogLab. Many of the details needed by
students to
> > write those labs were missing from the lab manual. Using Eprime
will
> > also
> > let the class suggest changes to the design that I can implement
for
> > the
> > class.
> > Thanks to those of you who responded.
> >
> > Gary
> >
> > Gary J. Klatsky, Ph. D.
> > Director, Human Computer Interaction M.A. Program
> >
> > Department of Psychology                [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Oswego State University (SUNY)
http://www.oswego.edu/~klatsky
> > 7060 State Hwy 104W                      Voice: (315) 312-3474
> > Oswego, NY 13126                           Fax:   (315) 312-6330
> >
> >
> >
> > ---
> > You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > To unsubscribe send a blank email to
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> ------------------------------------------------
> Hugh J. Foley
> Professor
> Department of Psychology
> Skidmore College
> Saratoga Springs, NY 12866
> 518-580-5308
> http://www.skidmore.edu/~hfoley
> ------------------------------------------------
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
>
> ---
> You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe send a blank email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>


---
You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to