wilcoxon ranked sum test for paired samples  (GraphPad Software Inc)

Journal: bioRxiv

Article Title: Confidence over competence: Real-time integration of social information in human continuous perceptual decision-making

doi: 10.1101/2024.08.19.608609

Figure Lengend Snippet: (a) Metacognitive sensitivity of joystick response for one example subject. Left: Distribution of joystick accuracy for low (gray) vs high eccentricity stimulus states (colored, median split). Accuracy and eccentricity were averaged for the last 30 frames (250 ms) prior to a stimulus direction change. Coherence is color-coded. Right: Corresponding receiver-operating characteristics (‘ROC’) between the two distributions for each coherence level (color-coded). A ROC curve along the diagonal would indicate similar accuracy distributions between hits and misses, suggesting no metacognitive sensitivity. (b) Population AUC values (black dots) are consistently above 0.5 (p<0.001, Two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test for distribution with median 0.5), demonstrating that high eccentricity was more often associated with high accuracy, suggesting metacognitive-sensitive confidence readouts.

Article Snippet: Differences between experimental conditions were tested with a two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test (Matlab: signrank, for paired samples) and a two-sided paired Wilcoxon rank sum test (Matlab: ranksum).

Techniques:

Journal: bioRxiv

Article Title: Confidence over competence: Real-time integration of social information in human continuous perceptual decision-making

doi: 10.1101/2024.08.19.608609

Figure Lengend Snippet: (a) Reward score in dyadic vs solo sessions. Scores were averaged across all targets, including misses. All solo and (human-human) dyadic sessions were pooled within-subject. Inset: coherence-wise averaging of reward scores. Stimulus coherence is color-coded, see legend on the right in panel c. Each subject contributes one data point per stimulus coherence level. The median score across all subjects for each coherence condition is overlaid in brighter color hues. Error bars show 99% confidence intervals of the median in solo and dyadic conditions. (b) Social modulation between solo and dyadic experiments, measured as AUC, for joystick accuracy (top) and eccentricity (bottom, Wilcoxon rank sum test, Bonferroni-corrected) of individual participants. Coherence was pooled within-subjects. See for average performance in dyadic experiments and for three examples of social modulation and how the AUC captures the directionality of the behavioral change. (c) Coherence dependent modulation of hit rate (top row), accuracy (center row) and eccentricity (bottom row) in dyadic vs solo setting. First column: quantification of dyadic vs solo change in behavior for each participant and coherence condition. All dyadic and solo sessions were pooled, respectively. AUC was used to quantify the direction and magnitude of social modulation. A value of 0.5 corresponds to perfect overlap between solo and dyadic response distributions, 1 and 0 imply perfect separation between experimental conditions (see ). Gray lines correspond to the AUC of individual participants. Red shading illustrates the 99% confidence intervals of the mean across participants. Bold, black lines show the mean across the population. Data were averaged within-subject first, before pooling across coherence conditions. Second column: average social modulation displayed for different solo performance quartiles. Coherence is color-coded. The grouping into quartiles was done for each response corresponding dimension separately. Please see for comparison of raw solo joystick responses with social modulation. See for quartile grouping across response dimensions. Third column: statistical comparison between joystick accuracy and eccentricity in solo and dyadic experiments, for each coherence condition. Sessions were pooled according to experimental condition within-subject. The percentage of participants with significantly different distribution in solo and dyadic sessions is displayed (Wilcoxon rank sum test, Bonferroni- corrected). The directionality of the significant effect in each subject was established with the AUC shown in the first column.

Article Snippet: Differences between experimental conditions were tested with a two-sided Wilcoxon signed rank test (Matlab: signrank, for paired samples) and a two-sided paired Wilcoxon rank sum test (Matlab: ranksum).

Techniques: Comparison