Cover not available
Article published In:
The Mental Lexicon
Vol. 17:2 (2022) ► pp.178–212

A note on the modeling of the effects of experimental time in psycholinguistic experiments

 | University of Tübingen
 | University of Bristol
 | University of Edinburgh
 | University of Tübingen
Thul et al. (2020) called attention to problems that arise when chronometric experiments implementing specific factorial designs are analysed with the generalized additive mixed model (GAMM), using factor smooths to capture trial-to-trial dependencies. From a series of simulations incorporating such dependencies, they conclude that GAMMs are inappropriate for between-subject designs. They argue that in addition GAMMs come with too many modeling possibilities, and advise using the linear mixed model (LMM) instead. As clarified by the title of their paper, their conclusion is: “Using GAMMs to model trial-by-trial fluctuations in experimental data: More risks but hardly any benefit”.
We address the questions raised by Thul et al. (2020), who clearly demonstrated that problems can indeed arise when using factor smooths in combination with factorial designs. We show that the problem does not arise when using by-smooths. Furthermore, we have traced a bug in the implementation of factor smooths in the mgcv package, which will have been removed from version 1.8–36 onwards.
To illustrate that GAMMs now produce correct estimates, we report simulation studies implementing different by-subject longitudinal effects. The maximal LMM emerges as slightly conservative compared to GAMMs, and GAMMs provide estimated coefficients that can be less variable across simulation runs. We also discuss two datasets where time-varying effects interact with numerical predictors in a theoretically informative way.
Keywords: generalized additive mixed model, factor smooths, by smooths, factorial designs, time-varying effects, random effects, researcher degrees of freedom, replication
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Sine waves
    • 2.1Sine waves with varying amplitudes
    • 2.2Sine waves with varying phase
  • 3.Power and Type-I error rate
    • 3.1Sine waves with varying absolute amplitude
    • 3.2Sine waves with varying phase
    • 3.3Simulations with the parameters of Thul et al. (2021)
    • 3.4From sine waves to random time-varying effects
  • 4.Interactions with time in experimental data
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Open practices statement
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Mathematical notation
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 4 April 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ml.21012.baa
References (24)
References
Baayen, R. H. (2010). The directed compound graph of English. an exploration of lexical connectivity and its processing consequences. In Olsen, S., editor, New impulses in word-formation (Linguistische Berichte Sonderheft 17), pages 383–402. Buske, Hamburg.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., van Rij, J., de Cat, C., and Wood, S. N. (2017a). Autocorrelated errors in experimental data in the language sciences: Some solutions offered by generalized additive mixed models. In Speelman, D., Heylen, K., and Geeraerts, D., editors, Mixed Effects Regression Models in Linguistics, pages 49–69. Springer, Berlin.Google Scholar
Baayen, R. H., Vasishth, S., Bates, D., and Kliegl, R. (2017b). The cave of shadows. Addressing the human factor with generalized additive mixed models. Journal of Memory and Language, 941:206–234. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barr, D. J., Levy, R., Scheepers, C., and Tily, H. J. (2013). Random effects structure for confirmatory hypothesis testing: Keep it maximal. Journal of Memory and Language, 68(3):255–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bates, D. M., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., and Baayen, R. H. (2015). Parsimonious mixed models. arXiv.org.Google Scholar
Chuang, Y.-Y. (2017). The effect of phonetic variation on word recognition in Taiwan Mandarin. PhD thesis, National Taiwan University, Taipei.
Chuang, Y.-Y., Fon, J., Papakyritsis, I., and Baayen, R. H. (2021). Analyzing phonetic data with generalized additive mixed models. In Ball, M. J., editor, Manual of Clinical Phonetics. Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Francis, G. (2012). Publication bias and the failure of replication in experimental psychology. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19(6):975–991. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Harm, M. W. and Seidenberg, M. S. (2004). Computing the meanings of words in reading: Cooperative division of labor between visual and phonological processes. Psychological Review, 1111:662–720. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hastie, T. and Tibshirani, R. (1990). Generalized Additive Models. Chapman & Hall, London.Google Scholar
Keuleers, E., Lacey, P., Rastle, K., and Brysbaert, M. (2012). The British Lexicon Project: Lexical decision data for 28,730 monosyllabic and disyllabic English words. Behavior Research Methods, 441:287–304. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Matuschek, H., Kliegl, R., Vasishth, S., Baayen, R. H., and Bates, D. M. (2017). Balancing Type I Error and Power in Linear Mixed Models. Journal of Memory and Language. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mock, P., Tibus, M., Ehlis, A.-C., Baayen, H., and Gerjets, P. (2018). Predicting adhd risk from touch interaction data. In Proceedings of the 20th ACM International Conference on Multimodal Interaction, pages 446–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Open Science Collaboration (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349(6251):aac4716. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pinheiro, J. C. and Bates, D. M. (2000). Mixed-effects models in S and S-PLUS. Statistics and Computing. Springer, New York. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Segalowitz, N. S. and Segalowitz, S. J. (1993). Skilled performance, practice, and the differentiation of speed-up from automatization effects: Evidence from second language word recognition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 14(03):369–385. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Thul, R., Conklin, K., and Barr, D. J. (2020). Using gamms to model trial-by-trial fluctuations in experimental data: More risks but hardly any benefit. Open Science Framework. downloaded October 2020. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2021). Using gamms to model trial-by-trial fluctuations in experimental data: More risks but hardly any benefit. Journal of Memory and Language, 1201:104247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Rij, J., Hendriks, P., van Rijn, H., Baayen, R. H., and Wood, S. N. (2019). Analyzing the time course of pupillometric data. Trends in hearing, 231:2331216519832483. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Westfall, J., Kenny, D. A., and Judd, C. M. (2014). Statistical power and optimal design in experiments in which samples of participants respond to samples of stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(5):2020. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wieling, M. (2018). Analyzing dynamic phonetic data using generalized additive mixed modeling: a tutorial focusing on articulatory differences between l1 and l2 speakers of english. Journal of Phonetics, 701:86–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wood, S. N. (2013). On p-values for smooth components of an extended generalized additive model. Biometrika, 1001:221–228. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2016). Just Another Gibbs Additive Modeller: Interfacing JAGS and mgcv. arXiv preprint arXiv:1602.02539v1.Google Scholar
(2017). Generalized Additive Models. Chapman & Hall/CRC, New York. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (6)

Cited by six other publications

Cho, Sun-Joo, Sarah Brown-Schmidt, Sharice Clough & Melissa C. Duff
2024. Comparing Functional Trend and Learning among Groups in Intensive Binary Longitudinal Eye-Tracking Data using By-Variable Smooth Functions of GAMM. Psychometrika DOI logo
Widmann, Andreas, Björn Herrmann & Florian Scharf
2024. Pupillometry is sensitive to speech masking during story listening: a commentary on the critical role of modeling temporal trends. Journal of Neuroscience Methods ► pp. 110299 ff. DOI logo
Winn, Matthew B.
2024. The Effort of Repairing a Misperceived Word Can Impair Perception of Following Words, Especially for Listeners With Cochlear Implants. Ear & Hearing 45:6 ► pp. 1527 ff. DOI logo
Heitmeier, Maria, Yu-Ying Chuang & R. Harald Baayen
2023. How trial-to-trial learning shapes mappings in the mental lexicon: Modelling lexical decision with linear discriminative learning. Cognitive Psychology 146 ► pp. 101598 ff. DOI logo
Ke, Sihui (Echo), Rui Jin & Keiko Koda
2023. Adult L2 learners’ morphological sensitivity in a morphosyllabic language. The Mental Lexicon 18:3 ► pp. 446 ff. DOI logo
Johns, Michael A. & Paola E. Dussias
2022. Comparing Single-Word Insertions and Multi-Word Alternations in Bilingual Speech: Insights from Pupillometry. Languages 7:4 ► pp. 267 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 25 october 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.