As always, thanks to @chrispaffen.bsky.social, @suryagayet.bsky.social, and @stigchel.bsky.social!

For the APA/JEP fans, here's the DOI: doi.org/10.1037/xlm0...

Also, how cool is the Taverne Amendment? It made it article open access, didn't even have to ask!
www.openaccess.nl/en/policies/...

Surprisingly, NO! They didn't load their memory more, even though they had capacity to spare (they did load more for an other manipulation).

They instead behaved more cautiously/less risky!

We used a copying task: PPs copied colored shapes from an (always available) example.

Now comes the kicker: we put PPs in a penalty box for 0.5 or 5 whole seconds every time they copied a piece incorrectly.

Did they try to memorize the info better when 5s (vs 0.5s) of their life was at stake?

Frequentist stats can only reject the null, or not. An unrejected null is no evidence for absence of the effect by design.

Frequentist equivalence tests are one solution. Or a Bayesian approach with a well defined stopping rule (stopping at X amount of evidence in favor OR against the effect).

@cstrauch.bsky.social, this one!

Huge thanks to advisors/co-authors @suryagayet.bsky.social, @chrispaffen.bsky.social and @stigchel.bsky.social .

One of the interesting solutions we discuss is that the unrestricted vs. forced-choice distinction is key.

We argue that incorporating aspects of natural behavior in VWM paradigms, can reveal a lot about how humans actually use their VWM.

Now for the less obvious beans: this pattern (longer view -> slower decay) does not show up in the typical (forced-choice) VWM paradigms: decay rates are independent from viewing time.

What might be up?

To spill the obvious beans first: memory performance got better with longer views, and it got worse with longer delays after viewing.
What's more: the LONGER a view was, the SLOWER performance got worse.

We had a bunch of people recreate example arrangements of funky shapes, however they wanted, while we tracked where they looked and what they did.

@suryagayet.bsky.social

yea I imagine it's not really an issue for most use cases.

Haha so cool to hear you're planning to do copy tasks! And very happy to hear you found the plugin to be useful :)

Feel free to reach out if you have any copy task/plugin related questions. Very curious what you're up to!

Yes! Check out pipe.jspsych.org, if you haven't already. The setup is quite straightforward, and has worked well for me.

Only potential drawback (if i recall correctly) is that your experiment files are accessible (also to participants), unless you have a paid/private github account.