| Website | https://www.martingiesel.net |
| Google Scholar | https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=Oh2LLzEAAAAJ&hl=en |
| ORCID | https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3832-7442 |
| Bluesky | [email protected] |
There is a GoFundMe to help the @datacolada team with the legal costs of being sued by Francesca Gino: https://gofund.me/58491686
If you can, chip in!
NEW PAPER
Harrison, Giesel, & Hesse
Action Perception in Athletes: Expertise Facilitates Perceptual Discrimination
If you’re interested in research on #multisensory perception, also consider having a look at this unpublishable preprint:
Kangur, Giesel, Harris, & Hesse
Visuo-tactile integration in texture perception: A replication and extension study
NEW PAPER
Kangur, Giesel, Harris, & Hesse
Crossmodal texture perception is illumination-dependent
Abstract Visually perceived roughness of 3D textures varies with illumination direction. Surfaces appear rougher when the illumination angle is lowered resulting in a lack of roughness constancy. Here we aimed to investigate whether the visual system also relies on illumination-dependent features when judging roughness in a crossmodal matching task or whether it can access illumination-invariant surface features that can also be evaluated by the tactile system. Participants ( N = 32) explored an abrasive paper of medium physical roughness either tactually, or visually under two different illumination conditions (top vs oblique angle). Subsequently, they had to judge if a comparison stimulus (varying in physical roughness) matched the previously explored standard. Matching was either performed using the same modality as during exploration (intramodal) or using a different modality (crossmodal). In the intramodal conditions, participants performed equally well independent of the modality or illumination employed. In the crossmodal conditions, participants selected rougher tactile matches after exploring the standard visually under oblique illumination than under top illumination. Conversely, after tactile exploration, they selected smoother visual matches under oblique than under top illumination. These findings confirm that visual roughness perception depends on illumination direction and show, for the first time, that this failure of roughness constancy also transfers to judgements made crossmodally.
HIRING NOW
3 year PostDoc position in ESRC project on touch perception at University of Aberdeen with Dr Constanze Hesse
For details and to apply, see: https://www.abdnjobs.co.uk/vacancy/research-fellow--508079.html
By all means, use them if you are in the 10.8% (according to this preprint) of people who know what they are doing. If not, it might be more efficient to use the frequentist stats you were trained in well (which included equivalence testing and sequential analyses, where needed).
Sometimes new and different is just not better. P-values (add effect sizes!) are limited, but they might be the least worse solution we will collectively manage to implement. 2/2
Continuing today with my favorite fact about Chapter 4 in my textbook. This is a difficult one, as the chapter is a brief overview on Bayesian statistics 😈, but to be a bit cheeky: My favorite fact is that a recent paper shows a distressingly high misuse of Bayesian statistics in psychology papers, suggesting that there is quite some work to be done in educating people.
The aim of this study is to investigate whether there is a potential mismatch between the usability of a statistical tool and psychology researchers’ expectation of it. Bayesian statistics is often promoted as an ideal substitute for frequentists statistics since it coincides better with researchers’ expectations and needs. A particular incidence of this is the proposal of replacing Null Hypothesis Significance Testing (NHST) by Null Hypothesis Bayesian Testing (NHBT) using the Bayes factor. In this paper, it is studied to what extent the usability and expectations of NHBT match well. First, a study of the reporting practices in 73 psychological publications was carried out. It was found that eight Questionable Reporting and Interpreting Practices (QRIPs) occur more than once among the practitioners when doing NHBT. Specifically, our analysis provides insight into possible mismatches and their occurrence frequencies. A follow-up survey study has been conducted to assess such mismatches. The sample (N = 108) consisted of psychology researchers, experts in methodology (and/or statistics), and applied researchers in fields other than psychology. The data show that discrepancies exist among the participants. Interpreting the Bayes Factor as posterior odds and not acknowledging the notion of relative evidence in the Bayes Factor are arguably the most concerning ones. The results of the paper suggest that a shift of statistical paradigm cannot solve the problem of misinterpretation altogether if the users are not well acquainted with the tools.
Daniel Lakens