August 2012
Volume 12, Issue 9
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   August 2012
A simple, intuitive method for computing confidence intervals in within-subject designs: Generalizing Loftus & Masson (1994) and avoiding biases of alternative accounts
Author Affiliations
  • Volker Franz
    University of Hamburg, Hamburg, Germany
  • Geoffrey Loftus
    University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
Journal of Vision August 2012, Vol.12, 822. doi:10.1167/12.9.822
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Volker Franz, Geoffrey Loftus; A simple, intuitive method for computing confidence intervals in within-subject designs: Generalizing Loftus & Masson (1994) and avoiding biases of alternative accounts. Journal of Vision 2012;12(9):822. doi: 10.1167/12.9.822.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Repeated-measures designs are common in the literature on motor behavior and, more general, in experimental psychology. Because of the correlational structure in these designs, calculation and interpretation of confidence intervals is nontrivial. One solution was provided by Loftus and Masson (1994). This solution, although widely adopted, has the limitation of implying the same-size confidence intervals for all factor levels and therefore does not allow assessment of variance homogeneity assumptions (i.e., the circularity assumption, which is crucial for the repeated measures ANOVA). This limitation and the method´s perceived complexity has sometimes led practitioners to use a simplified variant, based on a per-subject normalization of the data (Morrison & Weaver, 1995; Bakeman & McArthur, 1996; Cousineau, 2005; Morey, 2008). We show that this normalization method leads to biased results, and we provide a simple, intuitive generalization of the Loftus and Masson method that allows assessment of the circularity assumption. Using typical data from our own grasping experiments, we show to which extent these effects can affect the interpretation of experimental data.

Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×