(2018-08-24, 09:31 PM)Chris Wrote: The results section says that the total number of trials was nearly 101 million, and the total numbers of pairs of trials was over 96 million - a difference of about 5 million, or about 1 per session, given that the commonest number of trials per session was 20.
But the difference should be about 5 per session, as the trials from each session were divided into 5 sequences before forming the pairs. (In the illustration in figure 3, which had 3 options rather than 5, there were 14 trials and 4+5+2=11 pairs of trials - a difference of 3.)
That's an interesting observation. Available trial pairs for each session (or run) should consist of the total number of trials minus the number of different responses logged. It would seem that far fewer trials were deducted from the original total than would be expected.
Quote:That suggests the trials may not in fact have been divided into 5 sequences, as described in the Methods section. Or at any rate something doesn't seem consistent here.
Agreed. It looks like Dean has some serious splainin' to do.