-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
/
Stimuli descriptives.R
92 lines (64 loc) · 3.63 KB
/
Stimuli descriptives.R
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
setwd('C:/Users/Pablo/Dropbox/STUDIES/R/Experiment Data/Modality-switching experiment')
# Descriptives of the stimuli.
library(doBy)
library(pastecs)
stimuli = read.csv('Stimulicsv.csv')
str(stimuli)
# First confirm design-matched variables, length and frequency
# of target words per condition.
# Number of letters
summaryBy(prop_letters ~ Condition, FUN=stat.desc, data=stimuli[stimuli$position=='target',])
# mean in every condition = 7.08
# Word frequency: Log-10 Contextual Diversity measure from
# the SUBTLEX-NL corpus (Keuleers, Brysbaert, & New, 2010)
summaryBy(prop_lg10CD ~ Condition, FUN=stat.desc, data=stimuli[stimuli$position=='target',])
# mean in every condition = 1.92
# Measure how imageable the stimuli were.
# After word length and frequency, which are minutely matched across
# conditions, the most relevant variable may be the general perceptual
# strength, equivalent to the highest modality score for a word (i.e.,
# that of the dominant modality).
# Note that this index outperforms concreteness in predicting reading
# measures, as shown in:
# Connell, L., & Lynott, D. (2012). Strength of perceptual experience
# predicts word processing performance better than concreteness or
# imageability. Cognition, 125, 452-465.
# General perceptual strength (scores from 0 to 5)
stat.desc(stimuli$mean_perceptualstrength)
# RESULT: 3.33. That's above half of the maximum score, so above average as it were.
# and per condition:
summaryBy(mean_perceptualstrength ~ Condition, FUN=stat.desc, data=stimuli[stimuli$position=='target',])
# Now, modality exclusivity (scores from 0 to 1)
stat.desc(stimuli$mean_exclusivity)
# RESULT: .34. That's below average.
# Exclusivity per condition:
summaryBy(mean_exclusivity ~ Condition, FUN=stat.desc, data=stimuli[stimuli$position=='target',])
# Exclusivity per dominant modality:
summaryBy(mean_exclusivity ~ modality, FUN=stat.desc, data=stimuli)
#*************************
# General concreteness* (scores from 1 to 5; retrieved from http://crr.ugent.be/archives/1602)
# *NOTE THAT SOME SCORES ARE MISSING as they were absent from the corpus, so the more reliable indices are above.
#**************************
stat.desc(stimuli$mean_concreteness)
# RESULT: 3.02. That's essentially on the average point.
# and per condition:
summaryBy(mean_concreteness ~ Condition, FUN=stat.desc, data=stimuli[stimuli$position=='target',])
# RESULTS: The overall imageability of the stimuli is slightly above average according
# to the perceptual strength index, whereas it is below average based on modality
# exclusivity. All three measures are highly similar across conditions.
# OTHER VARIABLES
# Figures for the continuous IVS for each of the three critical conditions
summary = data.frame(summaryBy(prop_letters +conc_letters +prop_lg10CD +conc_lg10CD
+ prop_orthneigh +conc_orthneigh +prop_exclusivity
+ conc_exclusivity +LSA_distance ~ Condition,
stimuli[stimuli$position=='target',], FUN=list(mean, sd), na.rm=TRUE) )
summary[,-1] = round(summary[,-1], 2)
summary
# Last, true and false trials per condition
summary(stimuli[stimuli$Condition=='visual2visual', c('solution')])
summary(stimuli[stimuli$Condition=='haptic2visual', c('solution')])
summary(stimuli[stimuli$Condition=='auditory2visual', c('solution')])
# and for target items only:
summary(stimuli[stimuli$position=='target' & stimuli$Condition=='visual2visual', 'solution'])
summary(stimuli[stimuli$position=='target' & stimuli$Condition=='haptic2visual', 'solution'])
summary(stimuli[stimuli$position=='target' & stimuli$Condition=='auditory2visual', 'solution'])