English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In a simulation study, Stafford et al. ( Behavior Research Methods, 52 , 2142–2155, 2020) explored the effect of sample size on detecting group differences in ability in the presence of speed–accuracy trade-offs using the Drift Diffusion Model (DDM) and introduced an online tool to perform a power analysis. They found that the DDM approach was superior to analyzing the observed response times and response accuracies alone. In their simulation, they applied the EZ method to estimate the model parameters. In this article, we demonstrate that the EZ method, which cannot estimate the response bias parameter of the DDM, causes severe estimation bias for all parameters if the true response bias is not 0.5. Moreover, the bias patterns differ between EZ and the equivalent maximum likelihood estimation with  z  fixed at 0.5. This should be taken into consideration when using the otherwise excellent power analysis tool for experimental designs, in which  z ≠ 0.5 cannot be ruled out or even stipulate it.

Problems when fixing the response bias parameter z in drift diffusion analysis