Abstract
Contrary to the warning of Miller (1988), Rousselet and Wilcox (2020) argued that it is better to summarize each participant's single-trial reaction times (RTs) in a given condition with the median than with the mean when comparing the central tendencies of RT distributions across experimental conditions. They acknowledged that median RTs can produce inflated Type~I error rates when conditions differ in the number of trials tested, consistent with Miller's warning, but they showed that the bias responsible for this error rate inflation could be eliminated with a bootstrap bias correction technique. The present simulations extend their analysis by examining the power of bias-corrected medians to detect true experimental effects and by comparing this power with the power of analyses using means and regular medians. Unfortunately, although bias corrected medians solve the problem of inflated Type~I error rates, their power is lower than that of means or regular medians in many realistic situations. In addition, even when conditions do not differ in the number of trials tested, the power of tests (e.g., t-tests) is generally lower using medians rather than means as the summary measures. Thus, the present simulations demonstrate that summary means will often provide the most powerful test for differences between conditions, and they show what aspects of the RT distributions determine the size of the power advantage for means.
Subject
General Environmental Science
Reference55 articles.
1. Arnold, B. C., Balakrishnan, N., & Nagaraja, H. N. (1992). A first course in order statistics. Wiley. Balota, D. A., Yap, M. J., Cortese, M. J., & Watson, J. M. (2008). Beyond mean response latency: Response time distributional analyses of semantic priming. Journal of Memory & Language, 59(4), 495-523. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jml.2007.10.004
2. Moving beyond the mean in studies of mental chronometry: The power of response time distributional analyses;Balota;Current Directions in Psychological Science 20(3) 160-166 https,2011
3. Effects of conflict trial proportion: A comparison of the Eriksen and Simon tasks;Bausenhart;Attention Perception & Psychophysics,2021
4. On the interaction of S-R compatibility with other variables affecting reaction time;Broadbent;British Journal of Psychology 56 61-67 https,1965
5. Distractor probabilities modulate flanker task performance;Bulger;Attention Perception & Psychophysics,2021