• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

“这种行为让我们觉得很理想”:对 Huisman(2022)的评估和预期。

"This behavior strikes us as ideal": assessment and anticipations of Huisman (2022).

机构信息

Department of Psychology, University of Amsterdam, Nieuwe Achtergracht 129B, 1001, NK, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Department of Psychology, Universität der Bundeswehr München, Munich, Germany.

出版信息

Psychon Bull Rev. 2024 Feb;31(1):242-248. doi: 10.3758/s13423-023-02299-x. Epub 2023 Aug 1.

DOI:10.3758/s13423-023-02299-x
PMID:37542014
原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10866761/
Abstract

Huisman (Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1-10. 2022) argued that a valid measure of evidence should indicate more support in favor of a true alternative hypothesis when sample size is large than when it is small. Bayes factors may violate this pattern and hence Huisman concluded that Bayes factors are invalid as a measure of evidence. In this brief comment we call attention to the following: (1) Huisman's purported anomaly is in fact dictated by probability theory; (2) Huisman's anomaly has been discussed and explained in the statistical literature since 1939; the anomaly was also highlighted in the Psychonomic Bulletin & Review article by Rouder et al. (2009), who interpreted the anomaly as "ideal": an interpretation diametrically opposed to that of Huisman. We conclude that when intuition clashes with probability theory, chances are that it is intuition that needs schooling.

摘要

胡斯曼(Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2022)认为,当样本量较大时,有效的证据衡量标准应该比样本量较小时更支持真实的替代假设。贝叶斯因子可能违反这种模式,因此胡斯曼得出结论,贝叶斯因子作为证据衡量标准是无效的。在这个简短的评论中,我们提请注意以下几点:(1)胡斯曼所谓的异常实际上是由概率论决定的;(2)自 1939 年以来,统计文献中一直在讨论和解释胡斯曼的异常;这种异常也在 Rouder 等人(2009)的《心理学期刊与评论》一文中得到了强调,他们将这种异常解释为“理想”:这一解释与胡斯曼的解释截然相反。我们的结论是,当直觉与概率论发生冲突时,很可能是需要接受概率论的教育。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6762/10866761/d61e1e1b87da/13423_2023_2299_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6762/10866761/5a51e2a721b2/13423_2023_2299_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6762/10866761/bf87db706ed6/13423_2023_2299_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6762/10866761/d61e1e1b87da/13423_2023_2299_Fig3_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6762/10866761/5a51e2a721b2/13423_2023_2299_Fig1_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6762/10866761/bf87db706ed6/13423_2023_2299_Fig2_HTML.jpg
https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/6762/10866761/d61e1e1b87da/13423_2023_2299_Fig3_HTML.jpg

相似文献

1
"This behavior strikes us as ideal": assessment and anticipations of Huisman (2022).“这种行为让我们觉得很理想”:对 Huisman(2022)的评估和预期。
Psychon Bull Rev. 2024 Feb;31(1):242-248. doi: 10.3758/s13423-023-02299-x. Epub 2023 Aug 1.
2
Are P-values and Bayes factors valid measures of evidential strength?P 值和贝叶斯因子是证据强度的有效衡量标准吗?
Psychon Bull Rev. 2023 Jun;30(3):932-941. doi: 10.3758/s13423-022-02205-x. Epub 2022 Nov 23.
3
Bayes factors for testing inequality constrained hypotheses: Issues with prior specification.用于检验不等式约束假设的贝叶斯因子:先验规范问题。
Br J Math Stat Psychol. 2014 Feb;67(1):153-71. doi: 10.1111/bmsp.12013. Epub 2013 May 18.
4
A tutorial on a practical Bayesian alternative to null-hypothesis significance testing.关于实用贝叶斯替代零假设检验的教程。
Behav Res Methods. 2011 Sep;43(3):679-90. doi: 10.3758/s13428-010-0049-5.
5
History and nature of the Jeffreys-Lindley paradox.杰弗里斯-林德利悖论的历史与本质。
Arch Hist Exact Sci. 2023;77(1):25-72. doi: 10.1007/s00407-022-00298-3. Epub 2022 Aug 26.
6
Sequential hypothesis testing with Bayes factors: Efficiently testing mean differences.贝叶斯因子的序贯假设检验:高效检验均值差异。
Psychol Methods. 2017 Jun;22(2):322-339. doi: 10.1037/met0000061. Epub 2015 Dec 14.
7
Milestones in the history of hemoglobin research (in memory of professor Titus H.J. Huisman).血红蛋白研究历史上的里程碑(纪念蒂图斯·H·J·惠斯曼教授)
Hemoglobin. 2011;35(5-6):450-62. doi: 10.3109/03630269.2011.613506. Epub 2011 Sep 20.
8
Bayesian hypothesis testing for single-subject designs.贝叶斯假设检验在单被试设计中的应用。
Psychol Methods. 2013 Jun;18(2):165-85. doi: 10.1037/a0031037. Epub 2013 Mar 4.
9
An eighteenth-century medical-meteorological society in the Netherlands: an investigation of early organization, instrumentation and quantification. Part 2.荷兰一个18世纪的医学气象学会:早期组织、仪器与量化研究。第2部分。
Br J Hist Sci. 2006 Mar;39(140 Pt 1):49-66. doi: 10.1017/s0007087405007594.
10
Interpreting confidence intervals: A comment on Hoekstra, Morey, Rouder, and Wagenmakers (2014).解读置信区间:对霍克斯特拉、莫雷、鲁德和瓦根梅克斯(2014年)的评论
Psychon Bull Rev. 2016 Feb;23(1):124-30. doi: 10.3758/s13423-015-0859-7.

引用本文的文献

1
On Bayes factors for hypothesis tests.关于假设检验的贝叶斯因子。
Psychon Bull Rev. 2025 Jun;32(3):1070-1094. doi: 10.3758/s13423-024-02612-2. Epub 2024 Nov 25.

本文引用的文献

1
History and nature of the Jeffreys-Lindley paradox.杰弗里斯-林德利悖论的历史与本质。
Arch Hist Exact Sci. 2023;77(1):25-72. doi: 10.1007/s00407-022-00298-3. Epub 2022 Aug 26.
2
Are P-values and Bayes factors valid measures of evidential strength?P 值和贝叶斯因子是证据强度的有效衡量标准吗?
Psychon Bull Rev. 2023 Jun;30(3):932-941. doi: 10.3758/s13423-022-02205-x. Epub 2022 Nov 23.
3
A Bayesian perspective on severity: risky predictions and specific hypotheses.贝叶斯视角下的严重程度:风险预测和具体假设。
Psychon Bull Rev. 2023 Apr;30(2):516-533. doi: 10.3758/s13423-022-02069-1. Epub 2022 Aug 15.
4
Advantages masquerading as "issues" in Bayesian hypothesis testing: A commentary on Tendeiro and Kiers (2019).贝叶斯假设检验中“问题”的伪装优势:对 Tendeiro 和 Kiers(2019)的评论。
Psychol Methods. 2022 Jun;27(3):451-465. doi: 10.1037/met0000415. Epub 2021 Dec 9.
5
Documenting contributions to scholarly articles using CRediT and tenzing.使用 CRediT 和 tenzing 记录学术文章的贡献。
PLoS One. 2020 Dec 31;15(12):e0244611. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244611. eCollection 2020.
6
Editorial: Bayesian methods for advancing psychological science.社论:推进心理科学的贝叶斯方法。
Psychon Bull Rev. 2018 Feb;25(1):1-4. doi: 10.3758/s13423-018-1443-8.
7
Bayesian inference for psychology. Part I: Theoretical advantages and practical ramifications.贝叶斯推断在心理学中的应用。第一部分:理论优势与实际影响。
Psychon Bull Rev. 2018 Feb;25(1):35-57. doi: 10.3758/s13423-017-1343-3.
8
Measuring statistical evidence using relative belief.使用相对信念来衡量统计证据。
Comput Struct Biotechnol J. 2016 Jan 7;14:91-6. doi: 10.1016/j.csbj.2015.12.001. eCollection 2016.
9
Bayesian hypothesis testing for psychologists: a tutorial on the Savage-Dickey method.贝叶斯假设检验对心理学家来说:萨维奇-迪基方法教程。
Cogn Psychol. 2010 May;60(3):158-89. doi: 10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.12.001. Epub 2010 Jan 12.
10
Bayesian t tests for accepting and rejecting the null hypothesis.用于接受和拒绝原假设的贝叶斯t检验。
Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Apr;16(2):225-37. doi: 10.3758/PBR.16.2.225.