Data for: Exploring the comparative adequacy of a unimanual and a bimanual stimulus-response setup for use with three-alternative choice response time taskshttps://doi.org/10.18710/LEMWJ0Öttl, AntonKim, JonathanBehne, DawnGygax, PascalHyönä, JukkaGabriel, UteDataverseNO2022-09-202023-09-28T19:16:20ZResponse 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.Social SciencesPsychologyPsycholinguisticsStimulus-ResponseGender AssociationsEnglish2022-09-20Kim, Jonathan2022-09-15CC0 1.0