skip to main content
10.1145/3167918.3167941acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication Pagesaus-cswConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Modeling neurocognitive reaction time with gamma distribution

Published:29 January 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

As a broader effort to build a holistic biopsychosocial health metric, reaction time data obtained from participants undertaking neurocognitive tests; have been examined using Exploratory Data Analysis (EDA) for assessing its distribution. Many of the known existing methods assume, that the reaction time data follows a Gaussian distribution and thus commonly use statistical measures such as Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for analysis. However, it is not mandatory for the reaction time data, to necessarily follow Gaussian distribution and in many instances, it can be better modeled by other representations such as Gamma distribution. Unlike Gaussian distribution which is defined using mean and variance, the Gamma distribution is defined using shape and scale parameters which also considers higher order moments of data such as skewness and kurtosis. Generalized Linear Models (GLM), based on the family exponential distributions such as Gamma distribution, which have been used to model reaction time in other domains, have not been fully explored for modeling reaction time data in psychology domain. While limited use of Gamma distribution have been reported [5, 17, 21], for analyzing response times, their application has been somewhat ad-hoc rather than systematic. For this proposed research, we use a real life biopsychosocial dataset, generated from the 'digital health' intervention programs conducted by the Faculty of Health, Federation University, Australia. The two digital intervention programs were the 'Mindfulness' program and 'Physical Activity' program. The neurocognitive tests were carried out as part of the 'Mindfulness' program. In this paper, we investigate the participants' reaction time distributions in neurocognitive tests such as the Psychology Experiment Building Language (PEBL) Go/No-Go test [19], which is a subset of the larger biopsychosocial data set. PEBL is an open source software system for designing and running psychological experiments. Analysis of participants' reaction time in the PEBL Go/No-Go test, shows that the reaction time data are more compatible with a Gamma distribution and clearly demonstrate that these can be better modeled by Gamma distribution.

References

  1. R. H. Baayen and P. Milin. 2010. Analyzing Reaction Times. 3, 2 (2010), 12--28.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. D. A. Balota and D. H. Spieler. 1999. Word frequency, repetition, and lexicality effects in word recognition tasks: beyond measures of central tendency. J Exp Psychol Gen 128, 1 (1999), 32--55. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10100390Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. K. Bucsuhazy and M. Semela. 2017. Case Study: Reaction Time of Children According to Age. Transbaltica 2017: Transportation Science and Technology 187, Supplement C (2017), 408--413.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. S. L. Burbeck and Luce. 1982. Evidence from auditory simple reaction times for both change and level detectors | SpringerLink. R.D. Perception and Psychophysics 32, 2 (1982), 117--133.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Fermin Moscoso del Prado Martin. 2009. A Theory of Reaction Time Distributions. (2009).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. C. V. Dolan, H. L. van der Maas, and P. C. Molenaar. 2002. A framework for ML estimation of parameters of (mixtures of) common reaction time distributions given optional truncation or censoring. Behav Res Methods Instrum Comput 34, 3 (2002), 304--23. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12395546Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Luce R. Duncan. 1989. Response Times: Their Role in Inferring Elementary Mental Organization. PSYCHOMETRIKA 54, 3 (1989), 542--545.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. A. Heathcote, S. J. Popiel, and D. J. K. Mewhort. 1991. Analysis of Response-Time Distributions - an Example Using the Stroop Task. Psychological Bulletin 109, 2 (1991), 340--347.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. M. P. Henriquez-Henriquez, P. Billeke, H. Henriquez, F. J. Zamorano, F. Roth-hammer, and F. Aboitiz. 2014. Intra-Individual Response Variability Assessed by Ex-Gaussian Analysis may be a New Endophenotype for Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Front Psychiatry 5 (2014), 197.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. R. H. Hohle. 1965. Inferred components of reaction times as functions of forepaid duration. Journal of Experimental Psychology 69 (1965), 382--386.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. G. J. Husak, J. Michaelsen, and C. Funk. 2007. Use of the gamma distribution to represent monthly rainfall in Africa for drought monitoring applications. International Journal of Climatology 27, 7 (2007), 935--944.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. K. Krishnamoorthy, M. Lee, and W. Xiao. 2015. Likelihood ratio tests for comparing several gamma distributions. Environmetrics 26, 8 (2015), 571--583.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Yves Lacouture and Denis Cousineau. 2008. How to use MATLAB to fit the ex-Gaussian and other probability functions to a distribution of response times. Tutorials in Quantitative Methods for Psychology 4, 1 (2008), 35--45.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. S. Lo and S. Andrews. 2015. To transform or not to transform: using generalized linear mixed models to analyse reaction time data. Front Psychol 6 (2015), 1171.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Hanna Lu, Sandra Chan, and Linda Lam. 2016. Associations between Intra-Individual Variability of Reaction Time and Cognitive Function in Cognitively Normal Senior Adults: Still beyond Good or Bad? Geriatrics 1, 2 (2016), 13.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. Gareth Marshall. 2007. Statistical methods in the atmospheric sciences. Meteorological Applications 14, 2 (2007), 205--205.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  17. William J. McGill and John Gibbon. 1965. The general-gamma distribution and reaction times. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 2, 1 (1965), 1--18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Marco Moniz, Saul Neves de Jesus, Eduardo GonÃğalves, JoÃčo Viseu, Andreia Pacheco, and Susana Moreira. 2016. Portuguese Version of Simple Go/No-Go Task: Influence of Age in Attention and Response Inhibition Reaction Time. Psychology 07, 02 (2016), 254--257.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. S. T. Mueller. 2013. The Psychology Experiment Building Language (Version 0.13). (2013). http://pebl.sourceforge.netGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. Osborne. 2002. Notes on the use of data transformations. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation 8, 6 (2002).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. E. M. Palmer, T. S. Horowitz, A. Torralba, and J. M. Wolfe. 2011. What are the shapes of response time distributions in visual search? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 37, 1 (2011), 58--71.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  22. Vito Ricci. 2005. Fitting Distributions with R. (2005).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Paul T. Schickedanz and Gary F. Krause. 1970. A Test for the Scale Parameters of Two Gamma Distributions using the Generalized Likelihood Ratio. Journal of Applied Meteorology 9, 1 (1970), 13--16. <0013:atftsp>2.0.co;2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. Saul Sternberg. {n. d.}. RTs and the Ex-Gaussian Distribution Page 1 Reaction Times and the Ex-Gaussian Distribution: When is it Appropriate? ({n. d.}).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. H. C. S. Thom. 1958. A Note on the Gamma Distribution. Monthly Weather Review 86, 4 (1958), 117--122. <0117:anotgd>2.0.co;2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  26. H. C. S. Thom. 1958. A Note on the Gamma Distribution. Monthly Weather Review 86, 4 (1958), 117--122. <0117:anotgd>2.0.co;2Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. R. Whelan. 2008. Effective analysis of reaction time data. Psychological Record 58, 3 (2008), 475--482. <GotoISI>://WOS:000258586300009Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  28. D. S. Wilks. 1990. Maximum-Likelihood-Estimation for the Gamma-Distribution Using Data Containing Zeros. Journal of Climate 3, 12 (1990), 1495--1501.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  29. Trisha Van Zandt. 2002. Analysis of Response Time Distributions. Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology (2002).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Modeling neurocognitive reaction time with gamma distribution

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          ACSW '18: Proceedings of the Australasian Computer Science Week Multiconference
          January 2018
          404 pages
          ISBN:9781450354363
          DOI:10.1145/3167918

          Copyright © 2018 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 29 January 2018

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          ACSW '18 Paper Acceptance Rate49of96submissions,51%Overall Acceptance Rate204of424submissions,48%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader