Annual Scientific Meeting 2011 abstracts and links

 Annual Scientific Meeting 2011 abstracts and links

Music and amusis - an experience sampling study

Diana Omigie, Goldsmith’s University (London)

Congenital amusia (CA) is a developmental disorder characterized by deficits in melody perception and production. Empirical research into this condition has the potential to throw light on questions like how the brain processes music and why music listening can bring such pleasure to its listeners. However recent work has focused mainly on the perceptual abilities of people with C.A. and there has been little research into whether and how the observed perceptual deficits affect their appreciation of music in every day life. Assessing the degree with which amusics willingly engage with music in everyday life is a useful way of inferring how they feel about it and consequently evaluating the relationship between music perception and appreciation. We used hierarchical cluster analysis to evaluate the experiences ampling data collected from a total of 34 participants (17 amusics and 17 matched controls) and then observed how amusics were distributed over the resulting analysis solution. We found that at least 60 percent of amusics demonstrated a listening profile that was clearly distinct from that of controls. These amusics showed little evidence of wanting to engage with music in their everyday life. However the remaining amusics who fell into the cluster that mainly contained controls showed evidence of normal music appreciation; choosing to listen regularly and reporting obtaining pleasure from it. This research is important as it reveals contrasting attitudes towards music within the condition known as Congenital amusia. The reasons why appreciation may arise in the absence of normal perception are explored and further analysis is carried out to try to explain why the two groups of amusics show such different attitudes to music.

Research methods achievement predicted by stress, social class, and locus of control, but not dyscalculia

John Barry, City University (London)

Negative attitudes towards learning research methods (RM) are associated with poor grades and dropout. The present cross-sectional internet survey explored preferences for learning RM and factors associated with RM grades. Psychology students (N = 134) from high school to postgraduate level reported that more interaction with their teacher would improve grades. Those with most RM difficulty also wanted: practical work, visual teaching aids, more interesting textbooks, humour in teaching, smaller seminar groups, and more seminars. Using ordinal regression, the significant predictors of better RM grades relative to grades for other modules were: lower stress (p < .001), more advantaged social background (p < .005), and internal locus of control (p < .013). The effect of motivation was mediated by stress. Dyscalculia was not associated with RM grade. These findings have implications for ways to improve the teaching of research methods to psychology students.

Multiple hypothesis testing when hypotheses are related logically
using Shaffer’s R test: A hierarchical step down procedure with a step up test at each step

Andrew Rutherford, Keele University

Hochberg’s (1988) presented a powerful test based on Simes’ (1986) inequality.  Rom (1990) later improved this test by defining and calculating exact p-values.  Later, Hochberg and Rom (1995) described how to apply their tests when hypotheses were related logically, as described by Shaffer (1986).  However, as Hochberg and Rom’s (1995) account is not easily understood by sophisticated statistical mathematicians, it presents real problems for most other scientists.  This may explain the lack of application of this important work.  In response to my request for worked examples, Juliet Shaffer provided valuable insights into multiple hypothesis testing and Dror Rom delivered a new short-cut method to test logically related hypotheses, which he named Shaffer’s R test.  The background and application of Shaffer’s R test will be described.

Exploring what is hidden: The power of Latent Class Analysis in uncovering barriers to engagement in the arts

Glenn A. Williams, Nottingham Trent University

Latent class analysis is a powerful technique that enables researchers to glean insights into ‘hidden’ psychological experiences.  It has been used in a variety of domains, such as with attempts: to understand psychosis as measured along a continuum of symptom expression; to identify features of computer games that are integral to the gaming experience; and to assess the characteristics of a range of trauma and suicidal behaviour typologies.  The technique is grounded in the psychometric approach and item response theory and is a versatile method to dealing with nominal data in a deep and psychologically grounded way.  This presentation will involve discussion of the key principles and practices when undertaking a latent class analysis.  To illustrate the art and science of latent class analysis, a case example will draw on the nuances of data obtained from a general population survey of over 4,300 respondents and will model a set of various class solutions to unearth the barriers to engagement in the arts that could be present within a community.  

Towards a rational use of mathematics in the psychology of reasoning

Andy Fugard, University of Salzburg

Logic is the mathematics of reasoning.  Traditionally, logic in the psychology of reasoning was taken to mean classical logic and most non-mathematicians received a diagnosis of illogical.  However, there are many logics, including probability logics.  For so-called "basic" conditionals such as "If the card shows a square, then it's red", most people's degree of belief is given by a conditional probability, P(red|square), a justifiably rational interpretation.  However, a significant minority treat an "if" as an "and" (conjunction), which is less easy to justify.  Previously we found that, given a long series of trials, many of those initially showing a conjunction interpretation spontaneously shift to a conditional probability.  In this talk I will present evidence that automatic stimulus-oriented processes are responsible for the conjunctions and inhibitory function is required for a shift.  In another experiment we tested the effect of different expressions of identical  (from the perspective of probability theory) conditionals, e.g., for conditionals concerning four cards numbered 1 to 4: "If the card shows a 2, then it shows a 2 or a 4" versus "If the card shows a 2, then it shows an even number".  For the former type of conditional, most participants' degree of belief was 0, versus 1 for the latter type of conditional.  A theory of relevant deduction, originally developed for classical logic, explains these two interpretations.  These results illustrate the utility, and limitations, of logic for guiding theorizing and designing experiments about how non-mathematicians reason.

Adaptive design for model discrimination

Maarten Speekenbrink, University College London

Psychology is rich in formal models of learning, categorization and decision-making, to name but a few areas. While competing models differ in their substantive assumptions, they often make highly similar predictions. For this reason, model comparison based on empirical data is often inconclusive. Optimizing the design of an experiment for model discrimination is difficult, especially when individual participants differ widely in terms of model parameters. To resolve this problem, we present a method to design experiments adaptively whilst running them, at each trial choosing the stimulus which is expected to minimize the entropy of the posterior probability distribution over a set of competing models. We show the advantages of adaptive design in simulation study. We then present data from an experiment in which the method was applied to discriminate between competing models of category learning, including an exemplar model (the Generalized Context Model) and a decision bound model.

British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology 2011 Issue 1 online

Wiley-Blackwell is proud to publish the British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology on behalf of The British Psychological Society. Download the first issue of 2011 Testing overall and moderator effects in random effects meta-regression Hilde M. Huizenga, Ingmar Visser and Conor V. Dolan Correcting an analysis of variance for clustering Larry V. Hedges and Christopher H. Rhoads Evaluation of convergent and discriminant validity with multitrait–multimethod correlations Tenko Raykov Decision making on ambiguous stimuli such as prosody by subjects suffering from paranoid schizophrenia, alcohol dependence, and without psychiatric diagnosis Karol Fabia´nczyk Bayesian estimation of semiparametric nonlinear dynamic factor analysis models using the Dirichlet process prior Sy-Miin Chow, Niansheng Tang, Ying Yuan, Xinyuan Song and Hongtu Zhu Ridge structural equation modelling with correlation matrices for ordinal and continuous data Ke-Hai Yuan, Ruilin Wu and Peter M. Bentler The linear mixed model and the hierarchical Ornstein–Uhlenbeck model: Some equivalences and differences Zita Oravecz and Francis Tuerlinckx Expert tutorial Binary recursive partitioning: Background, methods, and application to psychology Edgar C. Merkle and Victoria A. Shaffer Statistical software review R you ready for R?: The CRAN Psychometrics Task View Ali Ünlü and Takuya Yanagida About British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology Edited by: Thom Baguley Impact Factor: 0.83 ISI Journal Citation Report © Ranking 2009: 7/11 (Psychology, Mathematical); 50/80 (Mathematics Interdisciplinary Applications); 56/100 (Statistics and Probability); 67/74 (Psychology, Experimental) The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology publishes articles relating to areas of psychology which have a greater mathematical or statistical aspect of their argument than is usually acceptable to other journals including: mathematical psychology statistics psychometrics decision making psychophysics classification relevant areas of mathematics, computing and computer software These include articles that address substantitive psychological issues or that develop and extend techniques useful to psychologists. New models for psychological processes, new approaches to existing data, critiques of existing models and improved algorithms for estimating the parameters of a model are examples of articles which may be favoured. For specific submission requirements, please view the Author Guidelines. Early View: Articles now appear on Early View before the paper version is published – Click here to see the Early View articles currently available online; BPS Blackwell For the complete range of Blackwell BPS books, please go to: www.wiley.com/go/bps About The British Psychological Society The British Psychological Society is the representative body for psychology and psychologists in the UK. The Journals of the British Psychological Society form an essential part of the Society's mission to advance and disseminate psychological knowledge. With a publishing history spanning over 100 years, our journals portfolio is at the forefront of the psychology community with international contributions and readership. For more information or to join the Society, please visit www.bps.org.uk

2010 CPD Workshop slides

Slides from all three of the 2010 CPD workshops (held in Nottingham on 13th December) are now available:

R: An introduction for psychologists (Thom Baguley & Danny Kaye, Nottingham Trent University)

Linear mixed models using R (Andy Fugard, Salzburg University)


An introduction to PsychoPy (Jonathan Peirce)

Finer details of travel to Nottingham and activities on the day

Here are some specific details about the sessions and directions to NTU, City Campus.
______________________________________________________________

Day 1
BPS Maths, Stats and Computing Section CPD workshop

Timing:
Monday December 13th 2010
9.00-9.30 Registration and coffee.
930-12.30 Morning workshop starts (either PsychoPy or R)
12.30-2.00 Lunch
2.00-5.00 Afternoon workshop ends (Linear mixed models in R)
Note: Lunch is provided as part of the workshop.

Contacts:
Professor Thom Baguley Thomas.BaguleyATntuDOTacDOTuk
Dr Gillian Smith Gillian.SmithATntuDOTacDOTuk
Dr Danny Kaye Danny.KayeATntuDOTacDOTuk

Emails:
We would like to create an email list to share with other delegates and the session leaders. If you wish to be included please email me (Thomas.BaguleyATntuDOTacDOTuk) requesting this (we are not permitted to circulate the list without permission).

Travel directions
By public transport.

The easiest way to get to Nottingham Trent University, City Campus (Campus Map) is by train and tram. Trams go direct from Nottingham train station to Nottingham Trent University every few minutes throughout the day. An all day tram ticket will cost about £3.00 (buy a ticket from the conductor on the tram; he or she will be able to provide change, from £10 or less).

The Nottingham Trent University tram stop is just outside the Chaucer building main reception (on the same side of the street). The Division of Psychology is based on the 4th floor of the Chaucer Building. The registration desk for the workshop will be at the Psychology entrance (also on the 4th floor!). Please feel free to ask the security personnel on the front desk for assistance if you require.

By car.

The easiest method is park and ride. Either travel to East Midlands Parkway (train station) and park your car and take the train to Nottingham, followed by tram (as above). You can buy a combined train and parking ticket.

Or travel to The Forest Park and Ride, park your car and take the tram (as above; except you’ll be coming in from the other direction and will need to cross the road to get to the Chaucer building). Parking is free.

Parking in central Nottingham.

Parking in central Nottingham is expensive – probably around £15-20 per day (but there are usually plenty of places in the Trinity Square or Victoria Centre car parks). The one-way system is also very difficult to navigate unless you are familiar with the city. We may be able to organize one or two visitors parking spaces at the Gill Street car park (see tram stop map above), but this is still not recommended (as getting through the one-way system in rush hour morning traffic is difficult unless you know the roads well).

There is also a guide to getting to NTU here

Monday evening:
The organizers and session leaders plan to have an informal drink and a meal after the workshop. Delegates are warmly invited to join us. We will meet in the Chaucer Building foyer at 6.30pm (to allow a short break after the session). You are warmly invited to attend.
____________________________________________________________________
Day 2
BPS Maths, Stats and Computing Section Annual Scientific Meeting

Directions:
Are as above, however, the Annual Scientific Meeting will be held in the Newton Building (this building is further up Goldsmith Street on the other side of the street from the Chaucer Building). Please see here for details (Campus Map)

Registration
Will be between 9-9.30 in the foyer of Newton Building. There will be signs, around the building, and feel free to ask the security on the front desk (main entrance is on Goldsmith Street) should you require any assistance.

If you have not already, please email Gillian.SmithATntuDOTacDOTuk to let us know you are planning to attend day two. It is a free event.

We look forward to welcoming you to NTU

2010 Scientific meeting programme

BPS Mathematical, Statistical and Computing Section

Annual Scientific Meeting Programme

14th December 2010

Time
9.30am- 9.45am	Welcome
9.45am- 10.15am	Dr Glenn A. Williams, Nottingham Trent University Exploring what is hidden: The power of Latent Class Analysis in uncovering barriers to engagement in the arts
10.15am-10.55am	Ranald Macdonald Prize winner: Dr Colette Corry, University of Ulster Title TBC
Morning tea break 10.55-11.20
11.20am-11.50am	Dr Maarten Speekenbrink, University College London Adaptive design for model discrimination
11.50am-12.30pm	Keynote speaker: Dr Michael Brammer, Institute of Psychiatry, London Lies, damned lie and fMRI: issues and challenges in the analysis of fMRI data
12.30pm-1.00pm	Dr Andrew Rutherford, Keele University Multiple hypothesis testing when hypotheses are related logically using Shaffer’s R test: A hierarchical step down procedure with a step up test at each step
1.00pm-1.45pm Lunch
1.45pm-2.15pm	John Barry, City University (London) Research methods achievement predicted by stress, social class, and locus of control, but not dyscalculia.
2.15pm-2.45pm	Diana Omigie, Goldsmith’s University (London) Music and amusis- an experience sampling study
2.45pm-3.15pm	Dr Andy Fugard, University of Salzburg Towards a rational use of mathematics in the psychology of reasoning
3.15pm-3.30pm Afternoon tea break
3.30pm AGM

Last chance for workshop registration

Places are still available for the Introduction to R, Linear mixed models in R and PsychoPy sessions. Only a few days left to register ...

Registration link

N.B. This is for the workshop only. The scientific meeting on the following day is free to attend and registration will be open until a couple of days before (this enables us to track the numbers and move to a larger lecture theatre if required).

2010 Workshop and scientific meeting (Nottingham December 13th-14th)

November's issue of The Psychologist incorrectly indicates the venue as London. The Workshop and Scientific meeting are most definitely in Nottingham!