应用于响应时间隐藏信息测试的机器学习大型分析:没有证据表明基于模型的预测器优于基线

IF 3.1 3区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Gáspár Lukács, D. Steyrl
{"title":"应用于响应时间隐藏信息测试的机器学习大型分析:没有证据表明基于模型的预测器优于基线","authors":"Gáspár Lukács, D. Steyrl","doi":"10.31234/osf.io/mfjx8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The response time Concealed Information Test (RT-CIT) can help to reveal whether a person is concealing the knowledge of a certain information detail. During the RT-CIT, the examinee is repeatedly presented with a probe, the detail in question (e.g., murder weapon), and several irrelevants, other details that are similar to the probe (e.g., other weapons). These items all require the same keypress response, while one further item, the target, requires a different keypress response. Examinees tend to respond to the probe slower than to irrelevants, when they recognize the former as the relevant detail. To classify examinees as having or not having recognized the probe, RT-CIT studies have almost always used the averaged difference between probe and irrelevant RTs as the single predictor variable. In the present study, we tested whether we can improve classification accuracy (recognized the probe: yes or no) by incorporating the average RTs, the accuracy rates, and the SDs of each item type (probe, irrelevant, and target). Using the data from 1,871 individual tests and incorporating various combinations of the additional variables, we built logistic regression, linear discriminant analysis, and extra trees machine learning models (altogether 26), and we compared the classification accuracy of each of the model-based predictors to that of the sole probe-irrelevant RT difference predictor as baseline. None of the models provided significant improvement over the baseline. Nominal gains in classification accuracy ranged between –1.5% and 3.1%. In each of the models, machine learning captured the probe-irrelevant RT difference as the most important contributor to successful predictions, or, when included separately, the probe RT and the irrelevant RT as the first and second most important contributors, respectively.","PeriodicalId":45791,"journal":{"name":"Collabra-Psychology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Machine learning mega-analysis applied to the Response Time Concealed Information Test: No evidence for advantage of model-based predictors over baseline\",\"authors\":\"Gáspár Lukács, D. Steyrl\",\"doi\":\"10.31234/osf.io/mfjx8\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The response time Concealed Information Test (RT-CIT) can help to reveal whether a person is concealing the knowledge of a certain information detail. During the RT-CIT, the examinee is repeatedly presented with a probe, the detail in question (e.g., murder weapon), and several irrelevants, other details that are similar to the probe (e.g., other weapons). These items all require the same keypress response, while one further item, the target, requires a different keypress response. Examinees tend to respond to the probe slower than to irrelevants, when they recognize the former as the relevant detail. To classify examinees as having or not having recognized the probe, RT-CIT studies have almost always used the averaged difference between probe and irrelevant RTs as the single predictor variable. In the present study, we tested whether we can improve classification accuracy (recognized the probe: yes or no) by incorporating the average RTs, the accuracy rates, and the SDs of each item type (probe, irrelevant, and target). Using the data from 1,871 individual tests and incorporating various combinations of the additional variables, we built logistic regression, linear discriminant analysis, and extra trees machine learning models (altogether 26), and we compared the classification accuracy of each of the model-based predictors to that of the sole probe-irrelevant RT difference predictor as baseline. None of the models provided significant improvement over the baseline. Nominal gains in classification accuracy ranged between –1.5% and 3.1%. In each of the models, machine learning captured the probe-irrelevant RT difference as the most important contributor to successful predictions, or, when included separately, the probe RT and the irrelevant RT as the first and second most important contributors, respectively.\",\"PeriodicalId\":45791,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Collabra-Psychology\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-02-16\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Collabra-Psychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mfjx8\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Collabra-Psychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/mfjx8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

响应时间隐藏信息测试(RT-CIT)可以帮助揭示一个人是否在隐瞒对某个信息细节的了解。在RT-CIT过程中,受试者被反复出示一个探针、有问题的细节(例如,凶器)和几个无关的、与探针相似的其他细节(例如其他武器)。这些项目都需要相同的按键响应,而另一个项目,目标,需要不同的按键响应。当考生将前者视为相关细节时,他们对调查的反应往往比对无关内容的反应慢。为了将考生归类为已经或没有识别出探针,RT-CIT研究几乎总是使用探针和不相关RT之间的平均差异作为单一预测变量。在本研究中,我们测试了是否可以通过合并每个项目类型(探针、无关和目标)的平均RT、准确率和SD来提高分类准确性(识别探针:是或否)。使用1871个个体测试的数据,并结合其他变量的各种组合,我们建立了逻辑回归、线性判别分析和额外树机器学习模型(共26个),并将每个基于模型的预测因子的分类精度与唯一探针无关的RT差分预测因子作为基线进行了比较。没有一个模型比基线有显著改善。分类准确率的名义增益在-1.5%到3.1%之间。在每一个模型中,机器学习都将与探针无关的RT差异视为成功预测的最重要因素,或者,如果单独包括,则将探针RT和不相关的RT分别视为第一和第二重要因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Machine learning mega-analysis applied to the Response Time Concealed Information Test: No evidence for advantage of model-based predictors over baseline
The response time Concealed Information Test (RT-CIT) can help to reveal whether a person is concealing the knowledge of a certain information detail. During the RT-CIT, the examinee is repeatedly presented with a probe, the detail in question (e.g., murder weapon), and several irrelevants, other details that are similar to the probe (e.g., other weapons). These items all require the same keypress response, while one further item, the target, requires a different keypress response. Examinees tend to respond to the probe slower than to irrelevants, when they recognize the former as the relevant detail. To classify examinees as having or not having recognized the probe, RT-CIT studies have almost always used the averaged difference between probe and irrelevant RTs as the single predictor variable. In the present study, we tested whether we can improve classification accuracy (recognized the probe: yes or no) by incorporating the average RTs, the accuracy rates, and the SDs of each item type (probe, irrelevant, and target). Using the data from 1,871 individual tests and incorporating various combinations of the additional variables, we built logistic regression, linear discriminant analysis, and extra trees machine learning models (altogether 26), and we compared the classification accuracy of each of the model-based predictors to that of the sole probe-irrelevant RT difference predictor as baseline. None of the models provided significant improvement over the baseline. Nominal gains in classification accuracy ranged between –1.5% and 3.1%. In each of the models, machine learning captured the probe-irrelevant RT difference as the most important contributor to successful predictions, or, when included separately, the probe RT and the irrelevant RT as the first and second most important contributors, respectively.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Collabra-Psychology
Collabra-Psychology PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
4.00%
发文量
47
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: Collabra: Psychology has 7 sections representing the broad field of psychology, and a highlighted focus area of “Methodology and Research Practice.” Are: Cognitive Psychology Social Psychology Personality Psychology Clinical Psychology Developmental Psychology Organizational Behavior Methodology and Research Practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信