Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Types of Hypothesis Testing01:11

Types of Hypothesis Testing

26.9K
There are three types of hypothesis tests: right-tailed, left-tailed, and two-tailed.
When the null and alternative hypotheses are stated, it is observed that the null hypothesis is a neutral statement against which the alternative hypothesis is tested. The alternative hypothesis is a claim that instead has a certain direction. If the null hypothesis claims that p = 0.5, the alternative hypothesis would be an opposing statement to this and can be put either p > 0.5, p < 0.5, or p...
26.9K
Statistical Hypothesis Testing01:16

Statistical Hypothesis Testing

3.0K
Hypothesis testing is a critical statistical procedure facilitating informed, evidence-based decisions. It begins with a hypothesis, which is a tentative explanation, or a prediction about a population parameter. This hypothesis can be either a null hypothesis (H0), indicating no effect or difference, or an alternative hypothesis (Ha), suggesting an effect or difference.
Statistical significance measures the probability that an observed result occurred by chance. If this probability, known as...
3.0K
Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing01:13

Accuracy and Errors in Hypothesis Testing

369
Hypothesis testing is a fundamental statistical tool that begins with the assumption that the null hypothesis H0 is true. During this process, two types of errors can occur: Type I and Type II. A Type I error refers to the incorrect rejection of a true null hypothesis, while a Type II error involves the failure to reject a false null hypothesis.
In hypothesis testing, the probability of making a Type I error, denoted as α, is commonly set at 0.05. This significance level indicates a 5%...
369
Null and Alternative Hypotheses01:16

Null and Alternative Hypotheses

10.5K
The actual hypothesis testing begins by considering two hypotheses. They are termed  the null hypothesis and the alternative hypothesis. These hypotheses contain opposing viewpoints.
The null hypothesis, denoted by H0 is a statement of no difference between the variables—they are not related. This can often be considered the status quo. As  a result if you cannot accept the null, it requires some action.
The alternative hypothesis, denoted by H1 or Ha, is a claim about the...
10.5K
What is a Hypothesis?01:14

What is a Hypothesis?

13.1K
A hypothesis can be a simple sentence or statement about a property or any phenomenon observed or predicted for a population. It is usually a claim about a  property of the population. It can be stated for any field observations or experiments. A hypothesis statement cannot be said to be right or wrong as it is merely a statement. It needs to be tested through an elaborate data collection process and an appropriate statistical test. A hypothesis should be a general but not a vague...
13.1K
Errors In Hypothesis Tests01:14

Errors In Hypothesis Tests

4.8K
When performing a hypothesis test, there are four possible outcomes depending on the actual truth (or falseness) of the null hypothesis and the decision to reject or not.
4.8K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

What's special about horizontal disparity.

Journal of vision·2023
Same author

Solving the stereo correspondence problem with false matches.

PloS one·2019
Same author

Attentional selection in judgments of stereo depth.

Vision research·2019
Same author

Perceived depth in non-transitive stereo displays.

Vision research·2014
Same author

The horizontal disparity direction vs. the stimulus disparity direction in the perception of the depth of two-dimensional patterns.

Journal of vision·2010
Same author

Is perceptual space inherently non-Euclidean?

Journal of mathematical psychology·2010
Same journal

Sublexical semantic decoding during incidental novel word learning in natural Chinese reading.

Cognitive psychology·2026
Same journal

Seeing, hearing, and feeling causation.

Cognitive psychology·2026
Same journal

Separating decision and motor contributions to behavioral biases induced by manipulating stimulus probability.

Cognitive psychology·2026
Same journal

Congruency drives "conflict adaptation" independent of conflict: Converging evidence from behavior and computational modeling.

Cognitive psychology·2026
Same journal

Corrigendum to "Network analyses identify critical factors for facilitating future-oriented decision-making" [Cogn. Psychol. 165 (2026) 101815].

Cognitive psychology·2026
Same journal

The time course of local coherence effects in German: Evidence from self-paced reading times and event-related potentials.

Cognitive psychology·2026
See all related articles

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Oct 11, 2025

Perceptual and Category Processing of the Uncanny Valley Hypothesis' Dimension of Human Likeness: Some Methodological Issues
07:34

Perceptual and Category Processing of the Uncanny Valley Hypothesis' Dimension of Human Likeness: Some Methodological Issues

Published on: June 3, 2013

17.5K

Hypothesis testing, attention, and 'Same'-'Different' judgments.

Bart Farell1

  • 1McGill University, Department of Psychology, 2001 McGill College Ave, Montreal, Quebec H3A 1G1, Canada.

Cognitive Psychology
|December 2, 2021
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Same-different judgments are anomalous, but this study reveals attention, not a distinct comparison mechanism, drives these effects. Encoding processes can perform comparisons, explaining unusual reaction times.

Keywords:
AttentionFast-‘Same’ effectReaction timesRelative judgmentsStimulus comparisons‘Same’-‘Different’ judgments

More Related Videos

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments
13:00

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments

Published on: January 23, 2017

10.0K
A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments
08:12

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments

Published on: March 1, 2022

2.6K

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Oct 11, 2025

Perceptual and Category Processing of the Uncanny Valley Hypothesis' Dimension of Human Likeness: Some Methodological Issues
07:34

Perceptual and Category Processing of the Uncanny Valley Hypothesis' Dimension of Human Likeness: Some Methodological Issues

Published on: June 3, 2013

17.5K
Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments
13:00

Measuring Attention and Visual Processing Speed by Model-based Analysis of Temporal-order Judgments

Published on: January 23, 2017

10.0K
A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments
08:12

A Psychophysics Paradigm for the Collection and Analysis of Similarity Judgments

Published on: March 1, 2022

2.6K

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Human Perception
  • Psychophysics

Background:

  • Standard models assume 'Same'-'Different' judgments involve a distinct comparison mechanism.
  • Empirical data show anomalies: fast 'Same' effect and criterion effect (conjunctive vs. disjunctive sameness).

Purpose of the Study:

  • Investigate the sources of the fast 'Same' effect and the criterion effect in 'Same'-'Different' judgments.
  • Determine if a separate comparison mechanism is necessary for these judgments.

Main Methods:

  • Employed a selective-comparison method using cues to deconfound stimulus encoding and comparison processes.
  • Conducted experiments with random letter strings and words as stimuli.
  • Manipulated the number of relevant and irrelevant attributes.

Main Results:

  • Reaction times (RTs) for conjunctive judgments increased with irrelevant letters, similar to relevant letters, despite no comparison.
  • RTs for disjunctive judgments were significantly slower than conjunctive judgments, contradicting symmetrical expectations.
  • Encoding processes, mediated by attention, were sufficient to perform the comparison function.

Conclusions:

  • A distinct comparison mechanism is not required for 'Same'-'Different' judgments.
  • Attention selects stimulus alternatives, partitioning them into 'Same' and 'Different' subsets.
  • The fast 'Same' and criterion effects arise from attentional limitations on selection.