Double Jeopardy in Inferring Cognitive Processes
Inferences we make about underlying cognitive processes can be jeopardized in two ways due to problematic forms of aggregation. First, averaging across individuals is typically considered a very useful tool for removing random variability. The threat is that averaging across subjects leads to averag...
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2014-10-01
|
| Series: | Frontiers in Psychology |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01130/full |
| _version_ | 1819078394466271232 |
|---|---|
| author | Mario eFific |
| author_facet | Mario eFific |
| author_sort | Mario eFific |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Inferences we make about underlying cognitive processes can be jeopardized in two ways due to problematic forms of aggregation. First, averaging across individuals is typically considered a very useful tool for removing random variability. The threat is that averaging across subjects leads to averaging across different cognitive strategies, thus harming our inferences. The second threat comes from the construction of inadequate research designs possessing a low diagnostic accuracy of cognitive processes. For that reason we introduced the systems factorial technology (SFT), which has primarily been designed to make inferences about underlying processing order (serial, parallel, coactive), stopping rule (terminating, exhaustive), and process dependency. SFT proposes that the minimal research design complexity to learn about n number of cognitive processes should be equal to 2n. In addition, SFT proposes that (a) each cognitive process should be controlled by a separate experimental factor, and (b) The saliency levels of all factors should be combined in a full factorial design. In the current study we cross combined the levels of jeopardies in a 2x2 analysis, leading to four different analysis conditions. The results indicate a decline in the diagnostic accuracy of inferences made about cognitive processes due to the presence of each jeopardy in isolation and when combined. The results warrant the development of more individual subject analyses and the utilization of full-factorial (SFT) experimental designs. |
| first_indexed | 2024-12-21T19:12:24Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-a59cd7e85e3441babfc07ce172cb558e |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1664-1078 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-12-21T19:12:24Z |
| publishDate | 2014-10-01 |
| publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
| record_format | Article |
| series | Frontiers in Psychology |
| spelling | doaj.art-a59cd7e85e3441babfc07ce172cb558e2022-12-21T18:53:10ZengFrontiers Media S.A.Frontiers in Psychology1664-10782014-10-01510.3389/fpsyg.2014.01130112127Double Jeopardy in Inferring Cognitive ProcessesMario eFific0Grand Valley State UniversityInferences we make about underlying cognitive processes can be jeopardized in two ways due to problematic forms of aggregation. First, averaging across individuals is typically considered a very useful tool for removing random variability. The threat is that averaging across subjects leads to averaging across different cognitive strategies, thus harming our inferences. The second threat comes from the construction of inadequate research designs possessing a low diagnostic accuracy of cognitive processes. For that reason we introduced the systems factorial technology (SFT), which has primarily been designed to make inferences about underlying processing order (serial, parallel, coactive), stopping rule (terminating, exhaustive), and process dependency. SFT proposes that the minimal research design complexity to learn about n number of cognitive processes should be equal to 2n. In addition, SFT proposes that (a) each cognitive process should be controlled by a separate experimental factor, and (b) The saliency levels of all factors should be combined in a full factorial design. In the current study we cross combined the levels of jeopardies in a 2x2 analysis, leading to four different analysis conditions. The results indicate a decline in the diagnostic accuracy of inferences made about cognitive processes due to the presence of each jeopardy in isolation and when combined. The results warrant the development of more individual subject analyses and the utilization of full-factorial (SFT) experimental designs.http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01130/fullindividual differencesFactorial designaveraging across subjectsinferring cognitive processesSFT |
| spellingShingle | Mario eFific Double Jeopardy in Inferring Cognitive Processes Frontiers in Psychology individual differences Factorial design averaging across subjects inferring cognitive processes SFT |
| title | Double Jeopardy in Inferring Cognitive Processes |
| title_full | Double Jeopardy in Inferring Cognitive Processes |
| title_fullStr | Double Jeopardy in Inferring Cognitive Processes |
| title_full_unstemmed | Double Jeopardy in Inferring Cognitive Processes |
| title_short | Double Jeopardy in Inferring Cognitive Processes |
| title_sort | double jeopardy in inferring cognitive processes |
| topic | individual differences Factorial design averaging across subjects inferring cognitive processes SFT |
| url | http://journal.frontiersin.org/Journal/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01130/full |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT marioefific doublejeopardyininferringcognitiveprocesses |