The DOI matches its Crossref record; 29 of the 29 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Comparison of Different Response Time Outlier Exclusion Methods: A Simulation Study
Open accessAbstract
In response time (RT) research, RT outliers are typically excluded from statistical analysis to improve the signal-to-noise ratio. Nevertheless, there exist several methods for outlier exclusion. This poses the question, how these methods differ with respect to recovering the uncontaminated RT distribution. In the present simulation study, two RT distributions with a given population difference were simulated in each iteration. RTs were replaced by outliers following two different approaches. The first approach generated outliers at the tails of the distribution, the second one inserted outliers overlapping with the genuine RT distribution. We applied ten different outlier exclusion methods and tested, how many pairs of distributions significantly differed. Outlier exclusion methods were compared in terms of bias. Bias was defined as the deviation of the proportion of significant differences after outlier exclusion from the proportion of significant differences in the uncontaminated samples (before introducing outliers). Our results showed large differences in bias between the exclusion methods. Some methods showed a high rate of Type-I errors and should therefore clearly not be used. Overall, our results showed that applying an exclusion method based on z-scores / standard deviations introduced only small biases, while the absence of outlier exclusion showed the largest absolute bias.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Wickham, H. (2016) · Use R! · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-24277-4 · Cited by 33,115
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797611417632 · Cited by 6,567
Leys, C., Ley, C., Klein, O., Bernard, P., & Licata, L. (2013) · Journal of Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2013.03.013 · Cited by 4,147
Chronometric explorations of mind
Posner, M. I. (1978) · Cited by 2,441
Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers.
Ratcliff, R. (1993) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.114.3.510 · Cited by 2,123
Alternatives to the Median Absolute Deviation
Rousseeuw, P. J., & Croux, C. (1993) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.1080/01621459.1993.10476408 · Cited by 1,949
On the speed of mental processes
Donders, F. C. (1969) · Acta Psychologica · doi:10.1016/0001-6918(69)90065-1 · Cited by 1,784
Motulsky, H. J., & Brown, R. E. (2006) · BMC Bioinformatics · doi:10.1186/1471-2105-7-123 · Cited by 1,616
Alternatives to the Median Absolute Deviation
Rousseeuw, P. J., & Croux, C. (1993) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2291267 · Cited by 1,466
Bulmer, M. (1978) · Sociology · doi:10.1177/003803857801200331 · Cited by 1,412
Cited by
Mental imagery and visual attentional templates: A dissociation
Cabbai, G., Brown, C. R. H., Dance, C., Simner, J., & Forster, S. (2023) · Cortex · doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2023.09.014 · Cited by 16
(2025) · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1012872 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- Berger, A., & Kiefer, M.
- Venue
- Frontiers in Psychology
- Publisher
- Frontiers Media SA
- Published
- 2021-06-14
- Volume
- 12
- Pages
- 675558-675558
- ISSN
- 1664-1078 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3168100440
- Cited by
- 312
- References
- 29
- FWCI
- 23.45
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Comparison of Different Response Time Outlier Exclusion Methods: A Simulation Study. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.675558
- The paper
- Berger, A., & Kiefer, M. (2021). Comparison of Different Response Time Outlier Exclusion Methods: A Simulation Study. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.675558
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.