Alexandra G Mitchell, Paulina O Kandt, Robert D McIntosh
{"title":"在线剖分:伪忽略在线测量的效度和信度。","authors":"Alexandra G Mitchell, Paulina O Kandt, Robert D McIntosh","doi":"10.1080/1357650X.2022.2109657","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This study assessed pseudoneglect using line bisection and perceptual landmark tasks in two matched online sessions. Line bisection bias was characterized by the traditional measure of Directional Bisection Error (DBE), and by Endpoint Weightings Bias (EWB), derived from an \"endpoint weightings\" analysis, made possible by the independent manipulation of left and right endpoints. EWB is proposed to index the relative attentional allocation to the two ends of the line. The expected leftward bias (pseudoneglect) was found, with larger effect sizes for EWB (<i>d</i> = -0.34 in both sessions) than for DBE (-0.22 in Session 1 and -0.14 in Session 2). Although EWB was slightly less reliable than DBE, it was more sensitive to pseudoneglect, and the endpoint weightings method has further advantages, including the option of an additional measure of non-lateralized attention. A substantial proportion of participants had difficulty following the instructions for the landmark task, which highlights the need for clear instructions and performance checks for this task. This study shows that line bisection can be used to measure pseudoneglect online, and provides grounds to suggest that the task should routinely include the independent manipulation of left and right endpoints, so that an endpoint weightings analysis can be performed.</p>","PeriodicalId":47387,"journal":{"name":"Laterality","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2022-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"On line bisection: Validity and reliability of online measures of pseudoneglect.\",\"authors\":\"Alexandra G Mitchell, Paulina O Kandt, Robert D McIntosh\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/1357650X.2022.2109657\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>This study assessed pseudoneglect using line bisection and perceptual landmark tasks in two matched online sessions. Line bisection bias was characterized by the traditional measure of Directional Bisection Error (DBE), and by Endpoint Weightings Bias (EWB), derived from an \\\"endpoint weightings\\\" analysis, made possible by the independent manipulation of left and right endpoints. EWB is proposed to index the relative attentional allocation to the two ends of the line. The expected leftward bias (pseudoneglect) was found, with larger effect sizes for EWB (<i>d</i> = -0.34 in both sessions) than for DBE (-0.22 in Session 1 and -0.14 in Session 2). Although EWB was slightly less reliable than DBE, it was more sensitive to pseudoneglect, and the endpoint weightings method has further advantages, including the option of an additional measure of non-lateralized attention. A substantial proportion of participants had difficulty following the instructions for the landmark task, which highlights the need for clear instructions and performance checks for this task. This study shows that line bisection can be used to measure pseudoneglect online, and provides grounds to suggest that the task should routinely include the independent manipulation of left and right endpoints, so that an endpoint weightings analysis can be performed.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":47387,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Laterality\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Laterality\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2022.2109657\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Laterality","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/1357650X.2022.2109657","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
On line bisection: Validity and reliability of online measures of pseudoneglect.
This study assessed pseudoneglect using line bisection and perceptual landmark tasks in two matched online sessions. Line bisection bias was characterized by the traditional measure of Directional Bisection Error (DBE), and by Endpoint Weightings Bias (EWB), derived from an "endpoint weightings" analysis, made possible by the independent manipulation of left and right endpoints. EWB is proposed to index the relative attentional allocation to the two ends of the line. The expected leftward bias (pseudoneglect) was found, with larger effect sizes for EWB (d = -0.34 in both sessions) than for DBE (-0.22 in Session 1 and -0.14 in Session 2). Although EWB was slightly less reliable than DBE, it was more sensitive to pseudoneglect, and the endpoint weightings method has further advantages, including the option of an additional measure of non-lateralized attention. A substantial proportion of participants had difficulty following the instructions for the landmark task, which highlights the need for clear instructions and performance checks for this task. This study shows that line bisection can be used to measure pseudoneglect online, and provides grounds to suggest that the task should routinely include the independent manipulation of left and right endpoints, so that an endpoint weightings analysis can be performed.
期刊介绍:
Laterality: Asymmetries of Body, Brain and Cognition publishes high quality research on all aspects of lateralisation in humans and non-human species. Laterality"s principal interest is in the psychological, behavioural and neurological correlates of lateralisation. The editors will also consider accessible papers from any discipline which can illuminate the general problems of the evolution of biological and neural asymmetry, papers on the cultural, linguistic, artistic and social consequences of lateral asymmetry, and papers on its historical origins and development. The interests of workers in laterality are typically broad.