Data Analysis and Power Simulations with General Linear Mixed Modelling for Psychophysical Data – A Practical, R-Based Guide
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sample size planning is not straight-forward for the complex designs that are usually employed in psychophysical (two-alternative forced-choice) experiments: characteristics such as binary response variables and nested data structures where responses may be correlated differently within participants and experimental sessions than across participants and experimental sessions make it harder to estimate the necessary number of participants and trials with traditional means. In this practical R-based guide, we first show in detail how we can simulate verisimilar psychophysical data. We then use these simulations to compare two different methods by which two-alternative forced-choice data can be analyzed: (1) the “two-step” approach, where first psychometric functions are fitted and then statistical tests are performed over the parameters of these fitted psychometric functions; (2) an approach based on Generalized Linear Mixed Modeling (GLMM) that does not require the intermediary step of fitting psychometric functions. We argue that the GLMM approach enhances statistical validity and show that it can increase statistical power. Finally, we provide a sample implementation of a simulation-based power analysis that can be used as-is for many simple designs, but is also easily adaptable for more complex designs. Overall, we show that a GLMM-based approach can be beneficial for data analysis and sample size planning for typical (two-alternative forced-choice) psychophysical designs.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it