September 2024
Volume 24, Issue 10
Open Access
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2024
Order Constrained Analyses of Eyewitness Memory Accuracy
Author Affiliations
  • Andrea Yaoyun Cui
    University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  • Meichai Chen
    University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  • Michel Regenwetter
    University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Journal of Vision September 2024, Vol.24, 754. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.24.10.754
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Andrea Yaoyun Cui, Meichai Chen, Michel Regenwetter; Order Constrained Analyses of Eyewitness Memory Accuracy. Journal of Vision 2024;24(10):754. https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.24.10.754.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

In psychological research, there are several commonly reported patterns in the relationships between decision accuracy, confidence, and response times. Firstly, there is a negative correlation between the similarity of the target and lures and response accuracy, as noted in studies like Huang et al. (2021). Secondly, studies report a positive relationship between confidence and accuracy, as mentioned in research by Brewer & Wells (2006). Thirdly, response time and accuracy are inversely related, as reported in De Boeck & Jeon’s (2019) work. We submit these regularities to a novel test using data from Horry and Brewer (2016)’s Experiments 1 and 2. In these experiments, participants first studied a target face, then tried to identify it from two items (Experiment 1) or four items (Experiment 2), and rated their confidence. We employed order-constrained inference using the QTEST software (Regenwetter et al., 2014; Zwilling et al., 2019). This approach translates verbal hypotheses into testable statistical ones without introducing unnecessary assumptions. At the individual participant level, we quantified evidence in favor or against each of the three hypotheses using Bayes factors (against an unconstrained baseline). We also assessed each of the three hypotheses jointly across participants using group Bayes factors. The Bayes factors obtained from the analyses indicated “decisive” evidence in support of the three hypotheses in Experiment 1 and “strong” to “very strong” evidence against the three hypotheses in Experiment 2, with notable individual variations. The lack of support in Experiment 2 might not be a flaw of the hypotheses themselves but could stem from the stimulus design or display settings not effectively reflecting the intended manipulation. This highlights the need for careful testing of stimulus design as well as display settings in visual attention research.

×
×

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.

×