cometadata/datacite-titles-descriptions-related-identifiers huggingface dataset:
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.95547
title: Experimental effects and individual differences in Linear Mixed Models: Estimating the relationship between spatial, object, and attraction effects in visual attention

description: <strong>Paper package (preprint PDF, data, R scripts) for:</strong> Kliegl, R., Wei, P., Dambacher, M., Yan, M., & Zhou, X. (2011). Experimental effects and individual differences in Linear Mixed Models: Estimating the relationship between spatial, object, and attraction effects in visual attention. <em>Frontiers in Quantitative Psychology and Measurement, 1.</em> <strong>Abstract</strong>. Linear mixed models (LMMs) provide a still underused methodological perspective on combining experimental and individual-differences research. Here we illustrate this approach with two-rectangle cueing in visual attention (Egly, Driver, & Rafal, 1994). We replicated previous experimental cue-validity effects relating to a spatial shift of attention within an object (spatial effect), to attention switch between objects (object effect), and to the attraction of attention towards the display centroid (attraction effect), taking also into account the design-inherent imbalance of valid and other trials. We simultaneously estimated variance/covariance components of subject-related random effects for these spatial, object, and attraction effects in addition to their mean RTs. The spatial effect showed a strong positive correlation with mean RT and a strong negative correlation with the attraction effect. The analysis of individual differences suggests that slow subjects engage attention more strongly at the cued location than fast subjects. We compare this joint LMM analysis of experimental effects and associated subject-related variances and correlations with two frequently used alternative statistical procedures. <strong>Corrections.</strong> Titus von der Malsburg pointed out two errors in the publication relating to AIC and BIC values reported on page 7: (1) The AIC-value for the model m2 was reported as 328540; the correct value is 325840. This was a transposition typo ("85" instead of "58"). (2) The BIC-value for model m1 (325941) is actually smaller than the BIC-value for model m2 (325964). Thus, for BIC, the fit of model m2 is not better than the one for model m1. 5 Jan 2011, R. Kliegl <strong>Update.</strong> KWDYZ.FQPM.v5.R is compatible with ggplot2 (0.9.0). 21 April 2012, R. Kliegl
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.95591.v1
title: New insights on the role of radial root conductivity on the overall water uptake dynamics

description: Presentation made in 2011. Present new ideas on the role of the root radial conductivity on the overall water uptake dynamics
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.95546
title: How preview space/time translates into preview cost/benefit for fixation durations during reading

description: <strong>Paper package (preprint PDF, data, R scripts) for:</strong> Kliegl, R., Hohenstein, S., Yan, M., & McDonald, S.A. (17 Jan 2012). How preview space/time translates into preview cost/benefit for fixation durations during reading.<em> Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.</em> <strong>Abstract. </strong>Eye-movement control during reading depends on foveal and parafoveal information. If the parafoveal preview of the next word is suppressed, reading is less efficient. A linear mixed model (LMM) reanalysis of McDonald (2006) confirmed his observation that preview benefit may be limited to parafoveal words that have been selected as the saccade target. Going beyond the original analyses, in the same LMM, we examined how the preview effect (i.e., the difference in single-fixation duration, SFD, between random-letter and identical preview) depends on the gaze duration on the pretarget word and on the amplitude of the saccade moving the eye onto the target word. There were two key results: (a) The shorter the saccade amplitude (i.e., the larger preview space), the shorter a subsequent SFD with an identical preview; this association was not observed with a random-letter preview. (b) However, the longer the gaze duration on the pretarget word, the longer the subsequent SFD on the target, with the difference between random-letter string and identical previews increasing with preview time. A third pattern—increasing cost of a random-letter string in the parafovea associated with shorter saccade amplitudes—was observed for target gaze durations. Thus, LMMs revealed that preview effects, which are typically summarized under “preview benefit”, are a complex mixture of preview cost and preview benefit and vary with preview space and preview time. The consequence for reading is that parafoveal preview may not only facilitate, but also interfere with lexical access.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.95546.v1
title: KHYM2012

description: <strong>Paper package (preprint PDF, data, R scripts) for:</strong> Kliegl, R., Hohenstein, S., Yan, M., & McDonald, S.A. (17 Jan 2012). How preview space/time translates into preview cost/benefit for fixation durations during reading.<em> Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.</em> <strong>Abstract. </strong>Eye-movement control during reading depends on foveal and parafoveal information. If the parafoveal preview of the next word is suppressed, reading is less efficient. A linear mixed model (LMM) reanalysis of McDonald (2006) confirmed his observation that preview benefit may be limited to parafoveal words that have been selected as the saccade target. Going beyond the original analyses, in the same LMM, we examined how the preview effect (i.e., the difference in single-fixation duration, SFD, between random-letter and identical preview) depends on the gaze duration on the pretarget word and on the amplitude of the saccade moving the eye onto the target word. There were two key results: (a) The shorter the saccade amplitude (i.e., the larger preview space), the shorter a subsequent SFD with an identical preview; this association was not observed with a random-letter preview. (b) However, the longer the gaze duration on the pretarget word, the longer the subsequent SFD on the target, with the difference between random-letter string and identical previews increasing with preview time. A third pattern—increasing cost of a random-letter string in the parafovea associated with shorter saccade amplitudes—was observed for target gaze durations. Thus, LMMs revealed that preview effects, which are typically summarized under “preview benefit”, are a complex mixture of preview cost and preview benefit and vary with preview space and preview time. The consequence for reading is that parafoveal preview may not only facilitate, but also interfere with lexical access.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.95547.v1
title: KWDYZ2011

description: <strong>Paper package (PDF, data, R scriot) for:</strong> Kliegl, R., Wei, P., Dambacher, M., Yan, M., & Zhou, X. (2011). Experimental effects and individual differences in Linear Mixed Models: Estimating the relationship between spatial, object, and attraction effects in visual attention. <em>Frontiers in Quantitative Psychology and Measurement, 1.</em> <strong>Abstract</strong>. Linear mixed models (LMMs) provide a still underused methodological perspective on combining experimental and individual-differences research. Here we illustrate this approach with two-rectangle cueing in visual attention (Egly, Driver, & Rafal, 1994). We replicated previous experimental cue-validity effects relating to a spatial shift of attention within an object (spatial effect), to attention switch between objects (object effect), and to the attraction of attention towards the display centroid (attraction effect), taking also into account the design-inherent imbalance of valid and other trials. We simultaneously estimated variance/covariance components of subject-related random effects for these spatial, object, and attraction effects in addition to their mean RTs. The spatial effect showed a strong positive correlation with mean RT and a strong negative correlation with the attraction effect. The analysis of individual differences suggests that slow subjects engage attention more strongly at the cued location than fast subjects. We compare this joint LMM analysis of experimental effects and associated subject-related variances and correlations with two frequently used alternative statistical procedures.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.95546.v3
title: How preview space/time translates into preview cost/benefit for fixation durations during reading

description: <strong>Paper package (preprint PDF, data, R scripts) for:</strong> Kliegl, R., Hohenstein, S., Yan, M., & McDonald, S.A. (17 Jan 2012). How preview space/time translates into preview cost/benefit for fixation durations during reading.<em> Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.</em> <strong>Abstract. </strong>Eye-movement control during reading depends on foveal and parafoveal information. If the parafoveal preview of the next word is suppressed, reading is less efficient. A linear mixed model (LMM) reanalysis of McDonald (2006) confirmed his observation that preview benefit may be limited to parafoveal words that have been selected as the saccade target. Going beyond the original analyses, in the same LMM, we examined how the preview effect (i.e., the difference in single-fixation duration, SFD, between random-letter and identical preview) depends on the gaze duration on the pretarget word and on the amplitude of the saccade moving the eye onto the target word. There were two key results: (a) The shorter the saccade amplitude (i.e., the larger preview space), the shorter a subsequent SFD with an identical preview; this association was not observed with a random-letter preview. (b) However, the longer the gaze duration on the pretarget word, the longer the subsequent SFD on the target, with the difference between random-letter string and identical previews increasing with preview time. A third pattern—increasing cost of a random-letter string in the parafovea associated with shorter saccade amplitudes—was observed for target gaze durations. Thus, LMMs revealed that preview effects, which are typically summarized under “preview benefit”, are a complex mixture of preview cost and preview benefit and vary with preview space and preview time. The consequence for reading is that parafoveal preview may not only facilitate, but also interfere with lexical access.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.95546.v2
title: How preview space/time translates into preview cost/benefit for fixation durations during reading

description: <strong>Paper package (preprint PDF, data, R scripts) for:</strong> Kliegl, R., Hohenstein, S., Yan, M., & McDonald, S.A. (17 Jan 2012). How preview space/time translates into preview cost/benefit for fixation durations during reading.<em> Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.</em> <strong>Abstract. </strong>Eye-movement control during reading depends on foveal and parafoveal information. If the parafoveal preview of the next word is suppressed, reading is less efficient. A linear mixed model (LMM) reanalysis of McDonald (2006) confirmed his observation that preview benefit may be limited to parafoveal words that have been selected as the saccade target. Going beyond the original analyses, in the same LMM, we examined how the preview effect (i.e., the difference in single-fixation duration, SFD, between random-letter and identical preview) depends on the gaze duration on the pretarget word and on the amplitude of the saccade moving the eye onto the target word. There were two key results: (a) The shorter the saccade amplitude (i.e., the larger preview space), the shorter a subsequent SFD with an identical preview; this association was not observed with a random-letter preview. (b) However, the longer the gaze duration on the pretarget word, the longer the subsequent SFD on the target, with the difference between random-letter string and identical previews increasing with preview time. A third pattern—increasing cost of a random-letter string in the parafovea associated with shorter saccade amplitudes—was observed for target gaze durations. Thus, LMMs revealed that preview effects, which are typically summarized under “preview benefit”, are a complex mixture of preview cost and preview benefit and vary with preview space and preview time. The consequence for reading is that parafoveal preview may not only facilitate, but also interfere with lexical access.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.95547.v2
title: KWDYZ2011

description: <strong>Paper package (PDF, data, R scriot) for:</strong> Kliegl, R., Wei, P., Dambacher, M., Yan, M., & Zhou, X. (2011). Experimental effects and individual differences in Linear Mixed Models: Estimating the relationship between spatial, object, and attraction effects in visual attention. <em>Frontiers in Quantitative Psychology and Measurement, 1.</em> <strong>Abstract</strong>. Linear mixed models (LMMs) provide a still underused methodological perspective on combining experimental and individual-differences research. Here we illustrate this approach with two-rectangle cueing in visual attention (Egly, Driver, & Rafal, 1994). We replicated previous experimental cue-validity effects relating to a spatial shift of attention within an object (spatial effect), to attention switch between objects (object effect), and to the attraction of attention towards the display centroid (attraction effect), taking also into account the design-inherent imbalance of valid and other trials. We simultaneously estimated variance/covariance components of subject-related random effects for these spatial, object, and attraction effects in addition to their mean RTs. The spatial effect showed a strong positive correlation with mean RT and a strong negative correlation with the attraction effect. The analysis of individual differences suggests that slow subjects engage attention more strongly at the cued location than fast subjects. We compare this joint LMM analysis of experimental effects and associated subject-related variances and correlations with two frequently used alternative statistical procedures.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.95547.v3
title: KWDYZ2011

description: <strong>Paper package (PDF, data, R scriot) for:</strong> Kliegl, R., Wei, P., Dambacher, M., Yan, M., & Zhou, X. (2011). Experimental effects and individual differences in Linear Mixed Models: Estimating the relationship between spatial, object, and attraction effects in visual attention. <em>Frontiers in Quantitative Psychology and Measurement, 1.</em> <strong>Abstract</strong>. Linear mixed models (LMMs) provide a still underused methodological perspective on combining experimental and individual-differences research. Here we illustrate this approach with two-rectangle cueing in visual attention (Egly, Driver, & Rafal, 1994). We replicated previous experimental cue-validity effects relating to a spatial shift of attention within an object (spatial effect), to attention switch between objects (object effect), and to the attraction of attention towards the display centroid (attraction effect), taking also into account the design-inherent imbalance of valid and other trials. We simultaneously estimated variance/covariance components of subject-related random effects for these spatial, object, and attraction effects in addition to their mean RTs. The spatial effect showed a strong positive correlation with mean RT and a strong negative correlation with the attraction effect. The analysis of individual differences suggests that slow subjects engage attention more strongly at the cued location than fast subjects. We compare this joint LMM analysis of experimental effects and associated subject-related variances and correlations with two frequently used alternative statistical procedures.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.95547.v5
title: Experimental effects and individual differences in Linear Mixed Models: Estimating the relationship between spatial, object, and attraction effects in visual attention

description: <strong>Paper package (preprint PDF, data, R scripts) for:</strong> Kliegl, R., Wei, P., Dambacher, M., Yan, M., & Zhou, X. (2011). Experimental effects and individual differences in Linear Mixed Models: Estimating the relationship between spatial, object, and attraction effects in visual attention. <em>Frontiers in Quantitative Psychology and Measurement, 1.</em> <strong>Abstract</strong>. Linear mixed models (LMMs) provide a still underused methodological perspective on combining experimental and individual-differences research. Here we illustrate this approach with two-rectangle cueing in visual attention (Egly, Driver, & Rafal, 1994). We replicated previous experimental cue-validity effects relating to a spatial shift of attention within an object (spatial effect), to attention switch between objects (object effect), and to the attraction of attention towards the display centroid (attraction effect), taking also into account the design-inherent imbalance of valid and other trials. We simultaneously estimated variance/covariance components of subject-related random effects for these spatial, object, and attraction effects in addition to their mean RTs. The spatial effect showed a strong positive correlation with mean RT and a strong negative correlation with the attraction effect. The analysis of individual differences suggests that slow subjects engage attention more strongly at the cued location than fast subjects. We compare this joint LMM analysis of experimental effects and associated subject-related variances and correlations with two frequently used alternative statistical procedures. <strong>Corrections.</strong> Titus von der Malsburg pointed out two errors in the publication relating to AIC and BIC values reported on page 7: (1) The AIC-value for the model m2 was reported as 328540; the correct value is 325840. This was a transposition typo ("85" instead of "58"). (2) The BIC-value for model m1 (325941) is actually smaller than the BIC-value for model m2 (325964). Thus, for BIC, the fit of model m2 is not better than the one for model m1. 5 Jan 2011, R. Kliegl <strong>Update.</strong> KWDYZ.FQPM.v5.R is compatible with ggplot2 (0.9.0). 21 April 2012, R. Kliegl
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.95547.v4
title: KWDYZ2011

description: <strong>Paper package (PDF, data, R scriot) for:</strong> Kliegl, R., Wei, P., Dambacher, M., Yan, M., & Zhou, X. (2011). Experimental effects and individual differences in Linear Mixed Models: Estimating the relationship between spatial, object, and attraction effects in visual attention. <em>Frontiers in Quantitative Psychology and Measurement, 1.</em> <strong>Abstract</strong>. Linear mixed models (LMMs) provide a still underused methodological perspective on combining experimental and individual-differences research. Here we illustrate this approach with two-rectangle cueing in visual attention (Egly, Driver, & Rafal, 1994). We replicated previous experimental cue-validity effects relating to a spatial shift of attention within an object (spatial effect), to attention switch between objects (object effect), and to the attraction of attention towards the display centroid (attraction effect), taking also into account the design-inherent imbalance of valid and other trials. We simultaneously estimated variance/covariance components of subject-related random effects for these spatial, object, and attraction effects in addition to their mean RTs. The spatial effect showed a strong positive correlation with mean RT and a strong negative correlation with the attraction effect. The analysis of individual differences suggests that slow subjects engage attention more strongly at the cued location than fast subjects. We compare this joint LMM analysis of experimental effects and associated subject-related variances and correlations with two frequently used alternative statistical procedures.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.95469.v1
title: Netplexity -The Complexity of Interactions in the Real World

description: “Netplexity -The Complexity of Interactions in the Real World” General overview talk on Networks and Complexity given by Dr Tim Evans, Theoretical Physics, Imperial College London on Monday 5th September 2011 http://imperial.ac.uk/people/t.evans or serach for “Tim Evans Networks” FezaGürsey Institute - Imperial College International Summer School and Research Workshop on Complexity, <br> Istanbul 5th-10th September 2011 Slides from Mathematical talk at http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.96209
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.95478.v1
title: Randomness and Complexity in Networks

description: Randomness and Complexity in Networks: Comments: Slides for talk given by Tim Evans at the workshop on ``Stochastic Networks and Internet Technology'', Centro di Ricerca Matematica Ennio De Giorgi, Matematica nelle Scienze Naturali e Sociali, Pisa, 17th - 21st September 2007. Lecture notes are also available on figshare as Stochastic Networks and Internet Technology. http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.96208 Abstract I start by reviewing some basic properties of random graphs. I then consider the role of random walks in complex networks and show how they may be used to explain why so many long tailed distributions are found in real data sets. The key idea is that in many cases the process involves copying of properties of near neighbours in the network and this is a type of short random walk which in turn produce a natural preferential attachment mechanism. Applying this to networks of fixed size I show that copying and innovation are processes with special mathematical properties which include the ability to solve a simple model exactly for any parameter values and at any time. I finish by looking at variations of this basic model.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.95467.v1
title: Netplexity -The Complexity of Interactions in the Real World

description: “Netplexity -The Complexity of Interactions in the Real World” General overview talk on Networks and Complexity given by Dr Tim Evans (Theoretical Physics, Imperial College London) on Monday 5th September 2011 at the FezaGürsey Institute - Imperial College International Summer School and Research Workshop on Complexity, Istanbul 5th-10th September 2011.
DOI: 10.6084/m9.figshare.95477.v1
title: NETPLEXITY: Networks and Complexity for the Real World

description: “Netplexity - Networks and Complexity for the Real World” General talk on Networks and Complexity given by Dr Tim Evans, Theoretical Physics, Imperial College London on Friday 10th August 2012 http://imperial.ac.uk/people/t.evans or search for “Tim Evans Networks” Second annual Student Conference on Complexity Science Oxstalls Campus, University of Gloucestershire 9th - 12th August 2012. http://bccs.bristol.ac.uk/events/SCCS/ Abstract:Title:- Netplexity:- Networks and Complexity for the Real World I will look at some of the different ways the science of Complex Networks gives insights into the world around us. Networks are an excellent way to look at the many large data sets which have appeared over the last decade or so such as web pages, Facebook, digital document repositories. The explosion of interest in networks has produced many new tools and insights which can be applied to many different types of data, from biological systems to humanities. Bio Dr Tim Evans is part of the Theoretical Physics group and the Complexity and Networks programme at Imperial College London. He finished his PhD at Imperial in 1987, applying statistical physics to quantum field theory for many body problems. He was then a researcher at the University of Alberta in Edmonton Canada, after which he held research positions at Imperial, including a final one as a Royal Society University Research Fellow. He was appointed to the staff at Imperial in 1997. He has always been interested in many body systems both in and out of equilibrium and his current focus is on complex systems in general and Complex Networks in particular. This is both from a theoretical perspective (such as line graph representations of networks) and in terms of applications to practical problems such as bibliometrics and cultural transmission, part of an interest in `sociophysics' in general. This includes an ongoing project in Archaeology.