Data for: Exploring the comparative adequacy of a unimanual and a bimanual stimulus-response setup for use with three-alternative choice response time tasks (doi:10.18710/LEMWJ0)

View:

Part 1: Document Description
Part 2: Study Description
Part 5: Other Study-Related Materials
Entire Codebook

Data for: Exploring the comparative adequacy of a unimanual and a bimanual stimulus-response setup for use with three-alternative choice response time tasks

doi:10.18710/LEMWJ0

DataverseNO

2022-09-20

2

Öttl, Anton; Kim, Jonathan; Behne, Dawn; Gygax, Pascal; Hyönä, Jukka; Gabriel, Ute, 2022, "Data for: Exploring the comparative adequacy of a unimanual and a bimanual stimulus-response setup for use with three-alternative choice response time tasks", https://doi.org/10.18710/LEMWJ0, DataverseNO, V2

Data for: Exploring the comparative adequacy of a unimanual and a bimanual stimulus-response setup for use with three-alternative choice response time tasks

doi:10.18710/LEMWJ0

Öttl, Anton (NTNU – Norwegian University of Science and Technology)

Kim, Jonathan (NTNU – Norwegian University of Science and Technology)

Behne, Dawn (NTNU – Norwegian University of Science and Technology)

Gygax, Pascal (University of Fribourg, Switzerland)

Hyönä, Jukka (University of Turku, Finland)

Gabriel, Ute (NTNU – Norwegian University of Science and Technology)

NTNU – Norwegian University of Science and Technology

FRIPRO 240881

DataverseNO

NTNU – Norwegian University of Science and Technology

Gabriel, Ute

Kim, Jonathan

2022-09-15

https://doi.org/10.18710/LEMWJ0

Social Sciences, Psychology, Psycholinguistics, Stimulus-Response, Gender Associations

Response setups for use with three+ alternative choice designs offer competing conceptualizations that stimulus-response setups can draw from, especially as paradigm complexity increases. We explore this topic through comparing a unimanual (Experiment 1, N = 34) and a bimanual response setup (Experiment 2, N = 32) for use with a complex three-alternative forced choice task. Crucially, one of the stimulus categories (‘mixed’) was composed of stimulus elements from the other two stimulus categories used in that task. A simple three-alternative forced choice task (reference button task) was included to isolate the motoric component of response registration. This dataset contains ten files; two RStudio code files allowing for easy replication of how the analyses was conducted, two .txt containing this code, five datafiles containing the raw data the code draws from, and one readme.txt file. This version contains updated code for the analyses of error rate, using a binomial rather than a gamma family for GLM model fitting.

Label:

00_README.txt

text/plain

Label:

AnalysisCode.Rmd

Text:

RStudio analysis file that is set up to allow those accessing this dataset to easily examine how analysis was done.

application/octet-stream

Label:

AnalysisCode.txt

Text:

A .txt file containing the analysis code from R for error rate and response time

text/plain

Label:

Exp00a_eventdata_merged.txt

Text:

Raw eye tracking data from the bimanual response setup

text/plain

Label:

Exp00b_eventdata_merged.txt

Text:

Raw eye tracking data from the unimanual response setup

text/plain

Label:

Exp00_RTanalyzedTrials.txt

Text:

Data file associated with eye tracking analysis

text/plain

Label:

EyeTracking.Rmd

Text:

RStudio analysis file for eyetracking data that is set up to allow those accessing this dataset to easily examine how analysis was done.

application/octet-stream

Label:

EyeTracking.txt

Text:

R code written out in a .txt file

text/plain

Label:

FriPro_EXP00A.txt

Text:

Raw data from the bimanual response setup

text/plain

Label:

FriPro_EXP00B.txt

Text:

Raw data from the unimanual response setup

text/plain