Abstract
Brinkman et al. (2019) recently introduced an innovative metric-infoVal-to assess the informational value of classification images (CIs) relative to a random distribution. Although this measure constitutes a valuable tool to distinguish random from nonrandom CIs, we identified two noteworthy discrepancies between the mathematical formalization of the infoVal metric and the authors' computation. Specifically, the computation was based on the one norm instead of the Euclidean norm, and the k constant was omitted in the denominator of the ratio that produces infoVal. Accordingly, the simulations and experimental results reported by Brinkman et al. do not build on the correct infoVal computation but on a biased index. Importantly, this discrepancy in the computation affects the statistical power and Type I and error rate of the metric. Here we clarify the nature of the discrepancies in the computation and run Brinkman et al.'s Simulation 1 anew with the correct values, to illustrate their consequences. Overall, we found that relying on the miscomputed infoVal metric can lead to misguided conclusions, and we urge researchers to use the correct values.
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
