Advertisement

Behavior Research Methods

, Volume 38, Issue 4, pp 584–589 | Cite as

Mix, a program for pseudorandomization

  • Maaarten van Casteren
  • Matthew H. Davis
Article

Abstract

In psychological experiments involving multiple trials, the order in which individual trials are presented to participants influences the results obtained. For this reason, experimenters often create carefully constrained experimental lists or check randomly generated lists to avoid known causes of order artifacts (e.g., short-term stimulus or response repetition). Creating appropriately structured pseudorandom lists can be a difficult and time-consuming task in generating psychological experiments. Mix is a Windows program that can generate pseudorandomized orders according to complex, user-specified constraints. Mix can be used to generate a novel item order for each individual participant, even for complex experiments in which stimulus and/or response repetition is an experimental variable of interest, or for which automated randomization would not normally be possible. The program also contains a number of other practical features for generating files for use with a variety of experiment control software. A Mix executable for Windows, a complete manual, and terms of use are available at www.mrc-cbu.cam.ac.uk/personal/maarten.van-casteren/Mix.htm. Use is limited to academic or other nonprofit applications.

Keywords

Lexical Decision Lexical Decision Task Semantic Priming Repetition Priming Visual Word Recognition 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Becker, S., Moscovitch, M., Behrmann, M., &Joordens, S. (1997). Long-term semantic priming: A computational account and empirical evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,23, 1059–1082.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Benjamini, Y., &Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B,57, 289–300.Google Scholar
  3. Bentin, S., &Moscovitch, M. (1988). The time course of repetition effects for words and unfamiliar faces. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,117, 148–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Broadbent, D. E. (1967). Word-frequency effect and response bias. Psychological Review,74, 1–15.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cave, C. B. (1997). Very long-lasting priming in picture naming. Psychological Science,8, 322–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cutler, A. (1981). Making up materials is a confounded nuisance, or Will we be able to run any psycholinguistic experiments at all in 1990? Cognition,10, 65–70.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Forster, K. L., &Forster, J. C. (2003). DMDX: A Windows display program with millisecond accuracy. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,35, 116–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gilden, D. L. (2001). Cognitive emissions of 1/f noise. Psychological Review,108, 33–56.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Meyer, D. E., &Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology,90, 227–234.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Monsell, S., Patterson, K. E., Graham, A., Hughes, C. H., &Milroy, R. (1992). Lexical and sublexical translation of spelling to sound: Strategic anticipation of lexical status. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 452–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Neely, J. H. (1991). Semantic priming effects in visual word recogni tion: A selective review of current findings and theories. In D. Besner & G. W. Humphreys (Eds.),Basic processes in reading: Visual word recognition (pp. 264–336). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  12. Perea, M., &Carreiras, M. (2003). Sequential effects in the lexical decision task: The role of the item frequency of the previous trial. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,56A, 385–401.Google Scholar
  13. Rastle, K., &Davis, M. H. (2002). On the complexities of measuring naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,28, 307–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Reber, A. S. (1989). Implicit learning and tacit knowledge. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,118, 219–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rogers, R. D., &Monsell, S. (1995). Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,124, 207–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tenpenny, P. L. (1995). Abstractionist versus episodic theories of repetition priming and word identification. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 339–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Weekes, B. (1997). Differential effects of number of letters on word and nonword naming latency. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,50A, 439–456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Whaley, C. P. (1978). Word—nonword classification time. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,17, 143–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Zevin, J. D., &Balota, D. A. (2000). Priming and attentional control of lexical and sublexical pathways during naming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,26, 121–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.MRC Cognition and Brain Sciences UnitCambridgeEngland

Personalised recommendations