Lists randomization

Hi Jeremy,

Just launched my experiment yesterday for some pilot data and it works great! Thank you for working on the bugs and for your continued support.

I noticed just one thing — I have 2 phases of the experiment: study and test. And I also have 16 experimental lists, and participants are assigned to a list randomly through the SetCounter(“counter”, “inc”, 1); command at the beginning of the experiment. I assumed that participants will be assigned to the same study and test lists but I’m seeing that some participants completed list 3 for study and list 11 for test.

Is there a way to fix that so that each person completes the same list for study and test?

Here is the link to the expt: https://farm.pcibex.net/r/dmrkYm/

Best,
Yev

• This reply was modified 2 years, 5 months ago by ediachek.

Hi Jeremy,

Thank you! I would never be able to figure this out.

So I tried deleting the (invisible?) space character using Excel functions but I’m not confident it worked, so I’ve decided to assign numbers 51-59 to lists 1-9. Would that work do you think?

Best,
Yev

Hi Jeremy,
I have a question regarding the distribution of the lists as well.
I ran an experiment which had 12 lists, and lasted about 40 minutes. It was published via prolific. Since there participants often fill up quickly, I set the counter earlier than at the end of the experiments, so that not everybody signing up within the first participant doing the experiment will get list1.
The counter was set after the training session and after they got ask to click a button for the experiment to start. I figure that there is a big chance that participants who got that far will also finish it – but i am aware that not everybody might do so.
When checking the results, it showed that the distribution of the lists was kind of erratic. It started with 3, then 5, 7, 9, then again 3, 5, maybe 6, 10, then again 3, without going at least until 11 or 12. 1 and 2 left out.
We changed the uploaded excel file to delete all lists that where presented already more than 2 (we wanted just 2 participant per list), but I hope there is another way to make sure, that the distribution of the lists is at least a bit more reliable.

Here is the code:

Sequence( "welcome" , "consent", "instruction", "practice1", "practice2","send", "trialTriangle", "start experiment", "counter", "experimental-trial", "send", "final");

[all elements in between]

newTrial("practice2",
  
    newText("top", "zgomot")
    ,
    newText("left", "copil")
    ,
    newText("right", "speria")
    , 
 //   newImage("triangle", "Triangle.png")
  //  .size(140,140)
    //,

    newCanvas("trialTriangle", 200,200)
        .settings.add( 50,0, getText("top").color("blue"))
        .settings.add(-30,140, getText("left"))
        .settings.add(120,140, getText("right"))
        .center()
        .print()
        ,
    newTextInput("response", "")
        .center()
        .log()
        .print()
        .wait(getTextInput("response").testNot.text(""))
        );
newTrial("start experiment",
    defaultText.center().print(),
    newText("Când sunteți gata să începeți experimentul, apăsați SPAȚIU.")
    ,
    newKey(" ").wait()  // Finish trial upon press on spacebar
);

SetCounter("counter", "inc", 1);

Template("draft_list_2.csv", row =>
    newTrial("experimental-trial", 
    newText("top", row.TOP).color(row.Coloring_Code=="TOO" ? "blue":"black"),
    newText("left", row.LEFT).color(row.Coloring_Code=="OLO" ? "blue":"black"),
    newText("right", row.RIGHT).color(row.Coloring_Code=="OOR" ? "blue":"black"),
    newCanvas("trialCanvas", 200,200)
        .settings.add( 50,0, getText("top"))
        .settings.add(-30,140, getText("left"))
        .settings.add(120,140, getText("right"))
        .center()
        .print()
        .log(),
    newTextInput("response", "")
        .center()
        .log()
        .print()
        .wait(getTextInput("response").testNot.text(""))
        )

and here the link to the full experiment

https://farm.pcibex.net/r/DYuHqf/
it’s the demonstration link

Thank you very much!!

Best, Anna