Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Reaction time and feedback

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    This occurs because of the random presentation of CS+ or CS- in concert with its limitations (max consecutive: 2, max total: 10). Are these not requirements of your design?

    Comment


    • #17
      Yes, these are two requirements of our design, however, as I have previously indicated , sometimes the criterion of "no more than 2 CS + or 2 CS- followed" does not work well. For example, CS +, CS +, CS -, CS +, CS +, CS -, CS +, CS +, CS -, CS +, CS +, CS -, CS+, CS +, (until now, all the possible CS+ of the experiment have already been presented, ie 10, while only 4 CS-, so the sequence continues as follows) CS-, CS-, CS-, CS-, CS-, CS-. Thus, this shows how the rule "no more than 2CS+ or 2CS- consecutively" has been broken.

      We would like to know if it is possible that it will not happen, maybe through a more balanced presentation of CSs over the course of the experiment. We suggest this because looking at the above example, if one kind of CS reachs the 10 presentations requirement very soon, the other can only reach this 10 presentarions requierement by breaking the rule "no more than 2 identical CS consecutively"). We think that a more balanced distribution of CSs throughout could help to keep both criteria unchanged, but we don't know if this is the correct solution, and, if it is correct, we don't know how to program it.

      Thank you very much for your help.

      Comment


      • #18
        This sort of balanced presentation will prevent randomization in portions of the experiment. There is only one way that a type of CS can catch up while not breaking the limitations that are set, and that is controlling it to present twice in a row while the other type is presented only once. I do not know your research goals or specifications so I don't know if this is an appropriate solution to your design. Let me know and I will try to implement the solution into your experiment.

        Comment


        • #19
          If the solution you propose works, try it out in our experiment. As I mentioned above, the rules of "exactly 10 CS + and 10 CS- presentations" and "no more than 2 CS + or 2 CS- consecutively" have to be mainteined. It is important not to break any of these rules as it is happening now (with more than 2 identical CSs presentations appearing consecutively in the last trials of the experiment). Indeed, when applied in this way, it would not be a randomization, but it would be a pseudo-randomization.

          The rest of the conditions don´t have to change either.

          Thank you very much for your effort and help.

          Comment


          • #20
            If one CS is ahead of the other by a certain amount, then it is impossible to prevent your requirements from being broken. This point of no return seems to be when the remaining presentations of one CS is more than twice of the remaining presentations of the other; when Remaining CS1 > Remaining CS2 * 2.

            I have created counters and rules that force-present CS1 (and CS2) just before this point; when Remaining CS1 = Remaining CS2 * 2

            Please test the attached experiment.
            Attached Files

            Comment


            • #21
              I have tested the attached experiment, and after several tests I have detected that the same problem still persists. Anyway, thank you very much for trying and for your effort and help.

              Comment


              • #22
                Of course. Best of luck with your experiment.

                Comment

                Working...
                X