速度-精度权衡?不那么快:在现实世界中,速度的边际变化与准确性之间存在不一致的关系

IF 1.9 3区 心理学 Q2 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
B. Domingue, K. Kanopka, B. Stenhaug, M. Sulik, Tanesia Beverly, Matthieu J. S. Brinkhuis, Ruhan Circi, Jessica Faul, Dandan Liao, Bruce McCandliss, Jelena Obradović, Chris Piech, Tenelle Porter, Project iLEAD Consortium, J. Soland, Jon Weeks, S. Wise, Jason D Yeatman
{"title":"速度-精度权衡?不那么快:在现实世界中,速度的边际变化与准确性之间存在不一致的关系","authors":"B. Domingue, K. Kanopka, B. Stenhaug, M. Sulik, Tanesia Beverly, Matthieu J. S. Brinkhuis, Ruhan Circi, Jessica Faul, Dandan Liao, Bruce McCandliss, Jelena Obradović, Chris Piech, Tenelle Porter, Project iLEAD Consortium, J. Soland, Jon Weeks, S. Wise, Jason D Yeatman","doi":"10.3102/10769986221099906","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The speed–accuracy trade-off (SAT) suggests that time constraints reduce response accuracy. Its relevance in observational settings—where response time (RT) may not be constrained but respondent speed may still vary—is unclear. Using 29 data sets containing data from cognitive tasks, we use a flexible method for identification of the SAT (which we test in extensive simulation studies) to probe whether the SAT holds. We find inconsistent relationships between time and accuracy; marginal increases in time use for an individual do not necessarily predict increases in accuracy. Additionally, the speed–accuracy relationship may depend on the underlying difficulty of the interaction. We also consider the analysis of items and individuals; of particular interest is the observation that respondents who exhibit more within-person variation in response speed are typically of lower ability. We further find that RT is typically a weak predictor of response accuracy. Our findings document a range of empirical phenomena that should inform future modeling of RTs collected in observational settings.","PeriodicalId":48001,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics","volume":"47 1","pages":"576 - 602"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Speed–Accuracy Trade-Off? Not So Fast: Marginal Changes in Speed Have Inconsistent Relationships With Accuracy in Real-World Settings\",\"authors\":\"B. Domingue, K. Kanopka, B. Stenhaug, M. Sulik, Tanesia Beverly, Matthieu J. S. Brinkhuis, Ruhan Circi, Jessica Faul, Dandan Liao, Bruce McCandliss, Jelena Obradović, Chris Piech, Tenelle Porter, Project iLEAD Consortium, J. Soland, Jon Weeks, S. Wise, Jason D Yeatman\",\"doi\":\"10.3102/10769986221099906\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The speed–accuracy trade-off (SAT) suggests that time constraints reduce response accuracy. Its relevance in observational settings—where response time (RT) may not be constrained but respondent speed may still vary—is unclear. Using 29 data sets containing data from cognitive tasks, we use a flexible method for identification of the SAT (which we test in extensive simulation studies) to probe whether the SAT holds. We find inconsistent relationships between time and accuracy; marginal increases in time use for an individual do not necessarily predict increases in accuracy. Additionally, the speed–accuracy relationship may depend on the underlying difficulty of the interaction. We also consider the analysis of items and individuals; of particular interest is the observation that respondents who exhibit more within-person variation in response speed are typically of lower ability. We further find that RT is typically a weak predictor of response accuracy. Our findings document a range of empirical phenomena that should inform future modeling of RTs collected in observational settings.\",\"PeriodicalId\":48001,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics\",\"volume\":\"47 1\",\"pages\":\"576 - 602\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-06-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986221099906\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986221099906","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

摘要

速度-精度权衡(SAT)表明,时间限制会降低响应精度。它在观察环境中的相关性尚不清楚,在观察环境下,反应时间(RT)可能不受限制,但反应速度可能仍然不同。使用29个包含认知任务数据的数据集,我们使用一种灵活的SAT识别方法(我们在广泛的模拟研究中进行了测试)来探究SAT是否成立。我们发现时间和准确性之间的关系不一致;个体时间使用的边际增加并不一定能预测准确性的提高。此外,速度-准确性关系可能取决于交互的潜在难度。我们还考虑对项目和个人的分析;特别令人感兴趣的是观察到,反应速度表现出更多人内变化的受访者通常能力较低。我们进一步发现,RT通常是反应准确性的弱预测因子。我们的发现记录了一系列经验现象,这些现象应该为未来在观测环境中收集的RT建模提供信息。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Speed–Accuracy Trade-Off? Not So Fast: Marginal Changes in Speed Have Inconsistent Relationships With Accuracy in Real-World Settings
The speed–accuracy trade-off (SAT) suggests that time constraints reduce response accuracy. Its relevance in observational settings—where response time (RT) may not be constrained but respondent speed may still vary—is unclear. Using 29 data sets containing data from cognitive tasks, we use a flexible method for identification of the SAT (which we test in extensive simulation studies) to probe whether the SAT holds. We find inconsistent relationships between time and accuracy; marginal increases in time use for an individual do not necessarily predict increases in accuracy. Additionally, the speed–accuracy relationship may depend on the underlying difficulty of the interaction. We also consider the analysis of items and individuals; of particular interest is the observation that respondents who exhibit more within-person variation in response speed are typically of lower ability. We further find that RT is typically a weak predictor of response accuracy. Our findings document a range of empirical phenomena that should inform future modeling of RTs collected in observational settings.
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
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
4.20%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, sponsored jointly by the American Educational Research Association and the American Statistical Association, publishes articles that are original and provide methods that are useful to those studying problems and issues in educational or behavioral research. Typical papers introduce new methods of analysis. Critical reviews of current practice, tutorial presentations of less well known methods, and novel applications of already-known methods are also of interest. Papers discussing statistical techniques without specific educational or behavioral interest or focusing on substantive results without developing new statistical methods or models or making novel use of existing methods have lower priority. Simulation studies, either to demonstrate properties of an existing method or to compare several existing methods (without providing a new method), also have low priority. The Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics provides an outlet for papers that are original and provide methods that are useful to those studying problems and issues in educational or behavioral research. Typical papers introduce new methods of analysis, provide properties of these methods, and an example of use in education or behavioral research. Critical reviews of current practice, tutorial presentations of less well known methods, and novel applications of already-known methods are also sometimes accepted. Papers discussing statistical techniques without specific educational or behavioral interest or focusing on substantive results without developing new statistical methods or models or making novel use of existing methods have lower priority. Simulation studies, either to demonstrate properties of an existing method or to compare several existing methods (without providing a new method), also have low priority.
×
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