In Reply to: So, how many subjects do you run, and how many trials per subject? posted by jj on December 2, 2002 at 07:24:32:
I've already told you it's propriatary to the company I work for and am not at liberty to divulge how it's actually accomplished. I'm just pointing out that it has been done sucessfully. Maybe it does go counter to most of what's published and your own experience, but it has been done sucessfully and maybe by more than one party - Like the case with whom I work for, it is unpublished as the methods are proprietary and considered business critical."You claim this is "introducing a bias", well, then, why don't you submit a paper to JASA "
It's rather common sense that you run the risk of the subject suddenly getting lost in the performance rather than conducting the test as expected, that's bias, hardly take a paper to realize it. Again, just pointing out that that one must get outside their little boxes of comfort and look at everything differently.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: So, how many subjects do you run, and how many trials per subject? - Jitter_by_Coffee 17:27:51 12/02/02 (36)
- Well, if you run one subject, and they control the switching... - jj 20:59:20 12/02/02 (35)
- Re: Well, if you run one subject, and they control the switching... - Jitter_by_Coffee 13:52:28 12/03/02 (34)
- Argumentum ad exhaustion is hardly convincing - jj 18:03:27 12/03/02 (33)
- Re: Argumentum ad exhaustion is hardly convincing - Jitter_by_Coffee 06:25:59 12/04/02 (32)
- It's called "peer review", Jit - E-Stat 18:00:48 12/04/02 (18)
- Re: It's called "peer review", Jit - Jitter_by_Coffee 07:54:26 12/05/02 (17)
- Here - E-Stat 09:24:36 12/05/02 (16)
- And by all means - Jitter_by_Coffee 11:51:38 12/05/02 (10)
- Why bother? - E-Stat 16:28:36 12/05/02 (9)
- Re: Why bother? - Jitter_by_Coffee 16:59:32 12/05/02 (8)
- It is truly a shame that - E-Stat 20:10:33 12/05/02 (7)
- Re: It is truly a shame that - Jitter_by_Coffee 11:50:07 12/06/02 (6)
- Re: It is truly a shame that - Jitter_by_Coffee 11:52:01 12/06/02 (5)
- Indeed opinions play a part - E-Stat 14:20:55 12/06/02 (4)
- Re: Indeed opinions play a part - Jitter_by_Coffee 22:37:10 12/06/02 (3)
- Let me refresh you memory - E-Stat 07:26:55 12/07/02 (2)
- Re: Let me refresh you memory - Jitter_by_Coffee 06:37:48 12/09/02 (1)
- Actually, I was at Disney two weeks ago - E-Stat 11:49:06 12/09/02 (0)
- Re: Here - Jitter_by_Coffee 11:47:34 12/05/02 (4)
- Re: Here - E-Stat 14:41:06 12/05/02 (3)
- Re: Here - Jitter_by_Coffee 16:58:50 12/05/02 (2)
- They do so on a regular basis - E-Stat 20:07:34 12/05/02 (1)
- Re: They do so on a regular basis - Jitter_by_Coffee 11:48:26 12/06/02 (0)
- Your point? You want to claim that your methods are effective.... - jj 09:54:30 12/04/02 (12)
- Re: Your point? You want to claim that your methods are effective.... - Jitter_by_Coffee 07:51:01 12/05/02 (11)
- Semantic evasion likewise. - jj 15:11:53 12/05/02 (10)
- Re: Semantic evasion likewise. - Jitter_by_Coffee 17:16:40 12/05/02 (9)
- Let's not let the facts bother you, eh? - jj 19:25:02 12/05/02 (8)
- Re: Let's not let the facts bother you, eh? - Jitter_by_Coffee 11:46:59 12/06/02 (7)
- Stop creating false positions for me. - jj 23:49:17 12/08/02 (6)
- Re: Stop creating false positions for me. - Jitter_by_Coffee 06:31:06 12/09/02 (5)
- I guess, once again, you can't deal with the facts... - jj 16:38:53 12/09/02 (4)
- Re: I guess, once again, you can't deal with the facts... - Jitter_by_Coffee 07:14:00 12/18/02 (3)
- It's time for you to retire from this, and admit you have nothing at hand - jj 17:58:41 12/18/02 (2)
- Re: It's time for you to retire from this, and admit you have nothing at hand - Jitter_by_Coffee 05:22:44 12/20/02 (1)
- See the CFP above - jj 21:00:26 12/26/02 (0)