Pablo Martínez-López
LightNews LightNews
banner
martinezlopezp.bsky.social
Pablo Martínez-López
@martinezlopezp.bsky.social
73 followers 120 following 11 posts
PhD student in Experimental Psychology at @univmalaga.bsky.social
Posts Replies Media Videos
martinezlopezp.bsky.social
Do these three measures tap into the same construct? We expected three positive correlations but found none—null convergent validity. Except for the RT switch cost in the forced-response task, the measures showed good psychometric reliability (≈ .80), which supported the robustness of our results
A) Scatterplot illustrating the correlation between the proportion of habit responses in the forced-response task and RT switch cost (in seconds) in the outcome-devaluation task (n = 47). B) Scatterplot depicting the relationship between RT switch cost (in seconds) in the forced-response and outcome-devaluation tasks (n = 47). C) Scatterplot showing the correlation between habit response and RT switch cost in the forced-response task (n = 50). In each figure, a marginal plot shows a histogram with a density plot overlapped for each measure.
November 25, 2025 at 10:19 AM
martinezlopezp.bsky.social
We replicated previous results in the forced-response task, with a time-dependent pattern of habit expression—habits were expressed with short preparation times. Previous findings in the aliens task were reproduced. Interestingly, we also found an RT switch cost effect in the forced-response task
Forced-response task. D) LMM predictions for goal-directed response RTs across stimulus types, training conditions, and stimulus onsets (i.e., excluding preparation times below ­ tmin). Shaded areas represent the 95% CI. The dashed lines illustrate the temporal moment in which each tone was displayed during the trial, whereas the solid line represents the imposed RT. E) Habit errors across preparation time windows for each training condition. Bars depict participants' mean proportion of habit errors, while error bars indicate the SEM. Dots show GLMM predictions, with error bars depicting the 95% CI. F) GAMM predictions for habit errors across training conditions and preparation times. Shaded areas denote the 95% CI. G) The partial derivative of the GAMM predictions for habit errors across training conditions and preparation times. Positive values indicate positive slopes (increasing likelihood of habit errors), negative values indicate negative slopes (decreasing likelihood of habit errors), and values near zero indicate a flattening of the function. Shaded areas represent the 95% CI Aliens outcome-devaluation task. A) Response selection in each block type and training condition. Bars depict participants' mean proportion of responses associated with the stimulus presented, while error bars indicate the SEM. Dots show GLMM predictions, with error bars depicting the 95% CI. B Goal-directed response RTs in each block and training condition. Bars show mean RTs for responses associated with the most valuable outcome available, and error bars indicate the SEM. Dots show GLMM predictions, and error bars depict the 95% CI
November 25, 2025 at 10:19 AM
martinezlopezp.bsky.social
Excited to be speaking about habits at the EAM2025 Conference!
July 23, 2025 at 7:10 PM