-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 5
/
08-mixed-effects-logistic-regressions.Rmd
1187 lines (744 loc) · 58.5 KB
/
08-mixed-effects-logistic-regressions.Rmd
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
499
500
501
502
503
504
505
506
507
508
509
510
511
512
513
514
515
516
517
518
519
520
521
522
523
524
525
526
527
528
529
530
531
532
533
534
535
536
537
538
539
540
541
542
543
544
545
546
547
548
549
550
551
552
553
554
555
556
557
558
559
560
561
562
563
564
565
566
567
568
569
570
571
572
573
574
575
576
577
578
579
580
581
582
583
584
585
586
587
588
589
590
591
592
593
594
595
596
597
598
599
600
601
602
603
604
605
606
607
608
609
610
611
612
613
614
615
616
617
618
619
620
621
622
623
624
625
626
627
628
629
630
631
632
633
634
635
636
637
638
639
640
641
642
643
644
645
646
647
648
649
650
651
652
653
654
655
656
657
658
659
660
661
662
663
664
665
666
667
668
669
670
671
672
673
674
675
676
677
678
679
680
681
682
683
684
685
686
687
688
689
690
691
692
693
694
695
696
697
698
699
700
701
702
703
704
705
706
707
708
709
710
711
712
713
714
715
716
717
718
719
720
721
722
723
724
725
726
727
728
729
730
731
732
733
734
735
736
737
738
739
740
741
742
743
744
745
746
747
748
749
750
751
752
753
754
755
756
757
758
759
760
761
762
763
764
765
766
767
768
769
770
771
772
773
774
775
776
777
778
779
780
781
782
783
784
785
786
787
788
789
790
791
792
793
794
795
796
797
798
799
800
801
802
803
804
805
806
807
808
809
810
811
812
813
814
815
816
817
818
819
820
821
822
823
824
825
826
827
828
829
830
831
832
833
834
835
836
837
838
839
840
841
842
843
844
845
846
847
848
849
850
851
852
853
854
855
856
857
858
859
860
861
862
863
864
865
866
867
868
869
870
871
872
873
874
875
876
877
878
879
880
881
882
883
884
885
886
887
888
889
890
891
892
893
894
895
896
897
898
899
900
901
902
903
904
905
906
907
908
909
910
911
912
913
914
915
916
917
918
919
920
921
922
923
924
925
926
927
928
929
930
931
932
933
934
935
936
937
938
939
940
941
942
943
944
945
946
947
948
949
950
951
952
953
954
955
956
957
958
959
960
961
962
963
964
965
966
967
968
969
970
971
972
973
974
975
976
977
978
979
980
981
982
983
984
985
986
987
988
989
990
991
992
993
994
995
996
997
998
999
1000
```{r setup8, include=FALSE}
knitr::opts_chunk$set(echo = TRUE, cache=TRUE)
```
# Mixed-effects logistic regression
**Preliminary code**
This code is needed to make other code below work:
```{r, message=F, error=F, warning=F}
library(gridExtra) # for grid.arrange() to print plots side-by-side
library(dplyr)
library(ggplot2)
library(arm)
library(languageR)
library(influence.ME)
## loads tappedMcGillLing620.csv from OSF project for Kilbourn-Ceron et al (2017) data
tapped <- read.csv(url("https://osf.io/pwdzx/download"))
## there is some missing data for 'tapped' variable -- exclude to avoid warnings later
tapped <- filter(tapped, !is.na(tapped))
tapped <- mutate(tapped, tapped.num=as.numeric(tapped)-1)
tapped$released <- factor(tapped$released, levels=c("Unreleased", "Released"))
tapped <- mutate(tapped,
syntax.trans = arm::rescale(syntax),
speechrate.slow = arm::rescale(speechrate)
)
## loads alternativesMcGillLing620.csv from OSF project for Wagner (2016) data
alternatives <- read.csv(url("https://osf.io/6qctp/download"))
## loads givennessMcGillLing620.csv from OSF project for Wagner (2012) data
givenness <- read.csv(url("https://osf.io/q9e3a/download"))
givenness <- mutate(givenness,
conditionLabel.williams = arm::rescale(conditionLabel),
clabel.williams = arm::rescale(conditionLabel),
npType.pronoun = arm::rescale(npType),
npType.pron = arm::rescale(npType),
voice.passive = arm::rescale(voice),
order.std = arm::rescale(order),
stressshift.num = (as.numeric(stressshift) - 1)
)
## function for computing accuracy of a logistic regression model
## (on the dataset used to fit the model)
## lrMod = fitted model
## responseVar = name of response variable for lrMod
## use.ranef = TRUE or FALSE (should we predict for grouping factor levels in this data, or for an "average" level? TRUE/FALSE)
##
## adapted from: https://www.r-bloggers.com/evaluating-logistic-regression-models/
lrAcc <- function(lrMod, responseVar, use.ranef=TRUE){
## convert response variable into a factor if it's not one
if(!is.factor(model.frame(lrMod)[,responseVar])){
model.frame(lrMod)[,responseVar] <- as.factor(model.frame(lrMod)[,responseVar])
}
## model predictions in log-odds
if(use.ranef){
preds = predict(lrMod, newdata=model.frame(lrMod))
} else{
## predict for average participant/item/other
preds = predict(lrMod, newdata=model.frame(lrMod), re.form=NA)
}
## transform to 0/1 prediction
preds <- ((sign(preds)/2)+0.5)
## response variable values, transformed to 0/1
respVarValues <- model.frame(lrMod)[,responseVar]
## if the response is already 0/1, just use it
if(is.numeric(respVarValues)){
y <- respVarValues
} else{
## otherwise, transform to 0/1
y <- (as.numeric(model.frame(lrMod)[,responseVar])-1)
}
## how often is prediction the same as the actual response
acc <- sum(preds==y)/length(preds)
return(acc)
}
## baseline accuracy for a logisitic regression model lrMod
## with a given response variable
baselineAcc <- function(lrMod, responseVar){
response <- model.frame(lrMod)[,responseVar]
tab <- table(response)
return(max(tab)/sum(tab))
}
```
<script src="js/hideOutput.js"></script>
**Note**: Answers to some questions/exercises not listed in text are in [Solutions](#c7solns).
## Preliminaries
*Mixed-effects logistic regression* (MELR) is to logistic regression as linear mixed-effects models are to linear regression. MELRs combine pieces we have seen previously in chapters on [logistic regression](#logistic-regression) and [linear mixed-effects models](#lmem):
1. **Logistic regression**
* Binary response $Y$
* Ex: `tapped` = 1 or 0, in the `tapping` dataset.
* Model log-odds that $Y$ happens.
2. **Fixed effects**
* "Predictors" from logistic regression, now called "fixed effects"
* Ex: `speechrate`, `vowelduration`, `syntax`
* Capture effect of each predictor across participants/items.
3. **Random effects**
* Capture by-participant/item variability
* Ex: in overall tapping rate ("random intercept"), in the effect of a predictor across participants ("random slope") or items.
Remember that logistic regression models the **log-odds** of a "hit" ($Y=1$) as a function of predictors. Not the number of hits, the probability of a hit, or anything else.
### Motivation
To get a sense of what kind of variability would be captured by the random effects in MELR models, we can examine by-participant and by-item variability in two datasets where the outcome is a binary (0/1) variable, just plotting the empirical data.
#### Tapping data {- #c7tapdata}
From the [`tapping` dataset](#tapdata), here are by-participant and by-item plots for the effect of `syntax`, the predictor of primary interest, on the probability of `tapping`:
```{r, fig.align='center', fig.height=3, fig.width=6}
library(gridExtra)
day19Plot1 <- ggplot(aes(x=syntax, y=tapped.num), data=tapped) +
stat_summary(fun.data="mean_cl_boot", geom='line', aes(group=participant)) +
coord_cartesian(ylim=c(0,0.6)) +
ylab("% tapped by speaker")
day19Plot2 <- ggplot(aes(x=syntax, y=tapped.num), data=tapped) +
stat_summary(fun.data="mean_cl_boot", geom='line', aes(group=item)) +
coord_cartesian(ylim=c(0,0.6)) +
ylab("% tapped by item")
grid.arrange(day19Plot1, day19Plot2, ncol = 2)
```
> **Questions**:
>
> * Does it look like there is by-participant variability in the intercept, slope, or both? What about by-item variability?
#### Givenness data {- #c7givedata}
For the [`givenness` dataset](#givedata), here are by-participant and by-item plots for the Williams effect (the effect of `conditionLabel` on probability of `stressshift`), which was of primary interest:
```{r, fig.align='center', fig.height=3, fig.width=6}
day19Plot3 <- ggplot(aes(x=conditionLabel, y=stressshift.num), data=givenness) +
stat_summary(fun.data="mean_cl_boot", geom='line', aes(group=participant)) +
coord_cartesian(ylim=c(0,1.0)) +
ylab("% shifted by speaker")
day19Plot4 <- ggplot(aes(x=conditionLabel, y=stressshift.num), data=givenness) +
stat_summary(fun.data="mean_cl_boot", geom='line', aes(group=item)) +
coord_cartesian(ylim=c(0,1.0)) +
ylab("% shifted by item")
grid.arrange(day19Plot3, day19Plot4, ncol = 2)
```
> **Questions**:
>
> * Again, for participants and items: do you think there is variability in the intercept? Slope? Both?
## Basics
Formally, we assume that there are $n$ observations. **Fixed effects** and **random effects** are defined in the same way as for linear mixed-effects models:
* $\beta_0$: the fixed-effect coefficient for the intercept
* $\beta_1, \ldots, \beta_k$: the fixed effect coefficients for $k$ predictors:
Random effects are defined with respect to one or more *grouping levels*. For example, there could be data from $J$ participants.
Mixed-effect logistic regressions are one kind of *generalized linear mixed model* (GLMM)---analogously to logistic regression being one kind of generalized linear model. To fit a MELR model in the `lme4` package, you use the `glmer()` function (**g**eneralized **l**inear **m**ixed **e**ffects **r**egression), with a `family=binomial()` argument, similarly to fitting a logistic regression using the `glm()` function.^[The `family='binomial'` argument specifies this regression uses a "logit link", as for logistic regressions (see @baayen2008analyzing).]
All pieces of an MELR model are familiar from our units on linear mixed models (Chapter \@ref(lmem)) and logistic regression (Chapter \@ref(logistic-regression)), so we will dive right in to a realistic example model that uses:
* Crossed random effects (participants, items)
* Multiple predictors
### Model 1: `givenness` data, crossed random effects (intercepts + slopes) {#c7m1}
We again consider the `givenness` data, using the binary annotation by a research assistant for whether stress shifted from the noun phrase (1/0 = shifted/not shifted).
* The response is `stressshift`
The data is grouped by:
* participants ($1, ..., J$)
* items ($1, ..., K$)
We use these fixed effect terms, to build a relatively simple model (no interactions):
* `clabel.williams` (varies across participants and items)
* `npType.pron` (varies across participants and items)
* `voice.passive` (varies across participants, not across items)
[Recall](#types-of-predictors) that `clabel.williams` and `npType.pron` are observation-level (they vary across participants and items) while `voice.passive` is item-level (it varies across participants, but not items).
The random effects contain intercepts and all possible random slopes:
* Intercepts: by-participant, by-word
* Slopes:
* Participant: `clabel.williams`, `npType.pron`, `voice.passive`
* Item: `clabel.williams`, `npType.pron`
---
It may be helpful for your understanding to explicitly write out what the equation for this model is. To do so, we define:
* $\alpha_{0, j}$ : random intercept for participant $j$
* $\delta_{0, k}$ : random intercept for item $k$
* $\alpha_{\text{clabel}, j}$ : random slope of $\texttt{clabel}$ for participant $j$
* $\delta_{\text{clabel}, k}$ : random slope of $\texttt{clabel}$ for item $k$
* ... similar for other random slopes.
The model for observation $i$ is then:
\begin{align*}
\text{logit}\left(P(y_i = 1)\right) &= \beta_0 + \alpha_{0,j[i]} + \delta_{0, k[i]} + \\
&\hphantom{{}={==}} \left( \beta_{\texttt{clabel}} + \alpha_{\texttt{clabel},j[i]} + \delta_{\texttt{clabel},k[i]} \right) \cdot \texttt{clabel}_i + \\
&\hphantom{{}={==}} \left( \beta_{\texttt{npType}} + \alpha_{\texttt{npType},j[i]} + \delta_{\texttt{npType},k[i]} \right) \cdot \texttt{npType}_i + \\
&\hphantom{{}={==}} \left( \beta_{\texttt{voice}} + \alpha_{\texttt{voice}, j[i]} \right) \cdot \texttt{voice}_{k[i]}
\end{align*}
In this formula:
* $\beta_0 + \alpha_{0,j[i]} + \delta_{0, k[i]}$ is our **intercept** for participant $j[i]$ and item $k[i]$
* $\beta_{\texttt{clabel}} + \alpha_{\texttt{clabel},j[i]} + \delta_{\texttt{clabel},k[i]}$ is our **slope for `clabel.williams`** for participant $j[i]$, item $k[i]$
* $\beta_{\texttt{npType}} + \alpha_{\texttt{npType},j[i]} + \delta_{\texttt{npType},k[i]}$ is our **slope for `npType.pron`** for participant $j[i]$, item $k[i]$
* $\beta_{\texttt{voice}} + \alpha_{\texttt{voice}, j[i]}$ is our **slope for `voice.passive`** for participant $j[i]$
(Recall that observation $i$ is from participant $j[i]$ and item $k[i]$.)
---
The terms fitted in this model---and hence shown in the regression model output---are:
* 4 fixed-effect coefficients: $\beta_0$, $\beta_{\texttt{clabel}}$, $\beta_{\texttt{npType}}$, $\beta_{\texttt{voice}}$
* For 3 predictors
* 7 variance components:
* Random intercepts: 2 terms
* Random slopes: 5 terms
* No correlations
Note that unlike linear mixed-effects models, there is no residual error variance term, for the same reasons as for logistic regression (see Sec. \@ref(c4differences)).
#### Fitting the model
To fit this model in R:
```{r, cache=TRUE}
lrMod1 <- glmer(stressshift ~ clabel.williams + npType.pron + voice.passive +
(1 + clabel.williams + npType.pron||item) +
(1 + clabel.williams + npType.pron + voice.passive||participant),
data=givenness,
family="binomial",
control=glmerControl(optimizer = "bobyqa"))
```
Note that the `control=glmerControl(optimizer = "bobyqa")` option is not necessary, but often facilitates model convergence.^[This option changes the optimization function R uses to find the parameters that maximize likelihood.]
The model output is:
```{r}
summary(lrMod1)
```
#### Interpreting the model
The fixed-effect and random-effect terms are interpreted similarly to a linear mixed-effects model, with the difference that the model predicts changes in log-odds.
Some examples of fixed effects:
* The intercept is $\hat{\beta}_0 = -1.13$:
* Interpretation: for an average subject and average item, with all predictors held at mean values:
\begin{equation*}
P(\text{shift stress}) = \text{logit}^{-1}(-1.13) = 0.24
\end{equation*}
* The slope for `npType` is $\hat{\beta}_{\texttt{npType}} = 0.79$
* Interpretation: for an average subject and item, the log-odds of shifting stress are 0.79 higher for pronouns than for full NPs.
* (Alternatively: the odds of shifting stress are 2.20 times higher ($=e^{0.79}$) for pronouns than for full NPs.)
For the random effects, first considering random intercepts:
* By-participant random intercept variance: $\hat{\sigma}_{s,0} = 0.41$
* 95% of participants have "baseline" log-odds of shifting stress in (-1.96, -0.31)
* (= $\hat{\beta}_0 \pm 1.96 \cdot \hat{\sigma}_{s,0}$)
* Alternatively, 95% of participants have baseline probability of shifting stress in (0.12, 0.42) (=invlogit(-1.96), invlogit(-0.31)).
* In contrast, there is basically no variability among *items* in "baseline" log-odds of shifting stress ($\hat{\sigma}_{w,0} \approx 0$).
For random slopes, consider the condition label effect (i.e. the "Williams effect"). The degree of variability among participants and items in the `clabel.williams` slope is:
$$
\hat{\sigma}_{\texttt{clabel}, partic}, \quad
\hat{\sigma}_{\texttt{clabel}, item}
$$
To visualize the predicted Williams effect for different participants and items:
```{r, fig.align='center', fig.width=7, fig.height=3}
particSlopes <- fixef(lrMod1)['clabel.williams'] + ranef(lrMod1)$participant$clabel.williams
itemSlopes <- fixef(lrMod1)['clabel.williams'] + ranef(lrMod1)$item$clabel.williams
lrMod1SlopeDf <- rbind(data.frame(type='participants', slope=particSlopes),
data.frame(type='items', slope=itemSlopes))
ggplot(aes(x=slope), data=lrMod1SlopeDf) +
geom_histogram(binwidth=0.25) +
facet_wrap(~type, scales="free") +
xlim(1,6) +
xlab("Predicted clabel slope")
```
The model predicts that the size of the Williams effect varies among items---but not participants---and is robust, in the sense of having the same direction across all participants and items.
Thus: participants (but not items) differ in the intercept, while items (but not participants) differ in the Williams effect (the `clabel.williams` slope).
## Hypothesis testing
### Fixed effects
Recall that for linear mixed-effects models, there is not a consensus on how to calculate p-values and whether doing so is a good idea (see Sec. \@ref(c6fixedp)), so no test statistic or $p$-value is given by default in the `lmer` output. One rough method was to assume that the estimated coefficient value divided by its standard error was normally distributed, and use this to calculate a $p$-value (for a two-sided "Wald test").
For generalized linear mixed-effects models, this is a somewhat more kosher method, and `glmer()` shows by default:
* The test statistic $z$ ($=\frac{\hat{\beta}}{SE(\hat{\beta})}$)
* The $p$-value for a two-sided Wald test.^[Meaning, how likely is it that $|z|$ would be at least this large, under the null hypothesis, assuming that $z$ is normally distributed?]
However, these $p$-values are still approximations---they are only correct in the limit of a large number of observations and large number of groups. **These Wald-test based $p$-values are good enough for our purposes**, but better methods would be:
* A likelihood ratio (LR) test: slightly better, fast
* Parametric bootstrap: much better, very slow
See the discussion for linear mixed models in @baayen2008analyzing for more detail on both, and [Ben Bolker's GLMM page](https://bbolker.github.io/mixedmodels-misc/glmmFAQ.html#testing-hypotheses) for more recent discussion. You may want to use a "better" method when reporting $p$-values in a paper. Here are a few examples:
#### Likelihood ratio test for one term {-}
To calculate an LR test $p$-value for just the `npType.pron` fixed-effect term in [Model 1](#c7m1):
```{r, cache=TRUE}
lrMod1.sub <- update(lrMod1, . ~ . - npType.pron)
anova(lrMod1, lrMod1.sub)
```
The $p$-value ($p=0.059$) is slightly higher than for the Wald test used in `lrMod1` ($p=0.047$).
#### Likelihood ratio test for each term {-}
The `afex` package lets you quickly compute an LR-based $p$-value for each term:
```{r, message=FALSE, cache=TRUE, warning=FALSE}
library(afex)
## fit model and get LR-based p-values:
lrMod1.lr <- mixed(stressshift ~ clabel.williams + npType.pron + voice.passive + (1 + clabel.williams + npType.pron||item) +
(1 + clabel.williams + npType.pron + voice.passive||participant),
data=givenness,
family="binomial", method='LRT',
control=glmerControl(optimizer = "bobyqa"))
## see the results:
lrMod1.lr
```
#### Parametric bootstrap (PB) test for each term {-}
This example uses a version of [Model 1](#c7m1) with random intercepts only, because using random slopes takes a very long time. Note this is only for pedagogical purposes---it is never a good idea to report a model where the only random effects are random intercepts!
```{r, message=FALSE, cache=TRUE}
library(afex)
## use multiple cores, if your machine has them.
require(parallel)
(nc <- detectCores()) # number of cores
cl <- makeCluster(rep("localhost", nc)) # make cluster
## fit a *random-intercepts only* model (in general, not OK, but it would take much longer to fit the model with random slopes).
## This still takes 5 minutes on my 8-core computer:
lrMod1.pb <- mixed(stressshift ~ clabel.williams + npType.pron + voice.passive +
(1|item) + (1|participant),
data=givenness,
family="binomial", method='PB', args_test=list(nsim=1000, cl=cl),
control=glmerControl(optimizer = "bobyqa"), cl=cl)
## look at the p-values (nb: 0.001 = minimum p-value when nsim=1000)
lrMod1.pb
```
### Random effects
It may also be of interest to test whether random-effect terms significantly improve the model. As for linear mixed models, in the large-sample limit the difference in deviance between the model with and without $k$ random effect terms is approximately $\chi^2(k)$ distributed. Thus, we can use a likelihood ratio test to assess the null hypothesis that (all of) the random effect terms have zero variance.
#### Example {-}
Do items significantly differ in the `clabel` effect (i.e. the Williams effect), in [Model 1](#c7m1)?
```{r, cache=TRUE}
lrMod1.1 <- glmer(stressshift ~ clabel.williams + npType.pron + voice.passive +
(1 + npType.pron || item) +
(1 + npType.pron + voice.passive + clabel.williams || participant),
data=givenness,
family="binomial",
control=glmerControl(optimizer = "bobyqa"))
anova(lrMod1, lrMod1.1)
```
This result could be reported as: "A likelihood ratio test showed that items differed significantly in the effect of condition label ($\chi^2(1) = 4.6$, $p=0.031$)."
## Fixed and random effects
In a model with random slopes, it is not clear what the best way is to assess "does predictor $X$ significantly improve the model?" Testing the fixed-effect only (as above) is the most common method---but this does not take into account variability in the effect among participants or items. It is possible for a predictor to show no **overall** effect (across participants and items), but to show significant variability among participants or items---indeed, this may be **why** there is no significant overall effect.
We can instead assess the contribution of predictor $X$ by doing model comparison (via a LR test) with a model where all terms involving $X$ are excluded (fixed and random effects). For example, to assess the contribution of `voice` to [Model 1](#c7m1), we would exclude the fixed effect and the by-participant random effect:
```{r, cache=TRUE}
## all terms involving `voice` excluded
lrMod1.1 <- glmer(stressshift ~ clabel.williams + npType.pron +
(1 + clabel.williams + npType.pron|| item) +
(1 + npType.pron + clabel.williams || participant),
data=givenness,
family="binomial",
control=glmerControl(optimizer = "bobyqa"))
anova(lrMod1, lrMod1.1)
```
So adding information about item voicing (the `voice` predictor) does significantly improve the model ($\chi^2(2)=7.4$, $p=0.024$)---even though there is no overall effect (fixed effect: $p=0.11$). This is because there is a lot of between-participant variability in the effect.
<!-- It is not standard (in 2018) to assess a predictor's contribution by excluding both fixed and random effects, but this option is worth keeping in mind, depending on your research questions. -->
## MELR Practice
This exercise gives practice fitting and interpreting mixed-effects logistic regression models.
### Exercise 1: tapping {#c7ex1}
<!-- For this exercise, use the updated version of the `tapping` data, in `tapped2.txt`. -->
For the `tapping` data, loaded and processed at the beginning of this chapter, the **response** is `tapped`. We will take the **predictors** to be:
* `syntax.trans`: whether `syntax` is *transitive* (0.5) or *intransitive* (-0.5)
* `speechrate.slow`: whether `speechrate` is *slow* (0.5) or *fast* (-0.5)
**Part 1**: Fitting
Fit an MELR model of this data, with:
* Fixed effects for both predictors
* By-participant and by-item random intercepts
* By-participant and by-item random slopes for both `syntax.trans` and `speechrate.slow`
(Make sure you understand: why is it OK to include these random-slope terms? Is either `syntax.trans` or `speechrate.slow` participant-level or item-level?)
How does this model assume tapping rate depends on syntax and speech rate, intuitively?
**Part 2**: Interpretation
* Do participants or items vary more in the intercept?
* How much do participants vary in the slope of `syntax.trans`?
* Do the model results for `syntax.trans` fit with what we saw in the [empirical data](#c7tapdata)?
<!-- TODO FUTURE: add this exercise back in, along with changes to dataset chapter to describe. -->
<!-- ### Exercise 2: t/d deletion {#c7ex2} -->
<!-- This exercise uses data in `td.csv`, from @sonderegger2017medium, on English t/d deletion: whether word-final /t/ or /d/ in a consonant cluster is deleted (ex: "best cake" pronounced as "bes' cake" or bes[t] cake"). A long sociolinguistic literature shows that the rate of t/d deletion depends on many factors, including three which are included in this dataset: -->
<!-- * The following phonological context: `following` has levels *vowel* and *consonant* -->
<!-- * Speaking rate: `speechrate` is a continuous variable (syllables/second) -->
<!-- * Morphological class: `morph` has levels *mono* (monomorphemes) and *past* (past-tense morphemes). -->
<!-- The morphological class effect is of primary interest, for understanding how variable speech phenomena are represented in the mind. The main research question is thus: is there a significant effect of `morph`, in the expected direction (*mono* words show more frequent deletion than *past* words)? -->
<!-- In this dataset: -->
<!-- * The response variable is `td` (1/0 if the word-final consonant is/isn't deleted) -->
<!-- * The data is grouped by `speaker` and `word` -->
<!-- * This data is from a speech corpus and, like most corpus data, is very unbalanced: some speakers and words have many more observations than others. In particular, the number of observations for each level of `word` will be proportional to the word's frequency (ex: ~50% of the data is "and" and "just" observations). -->
<!-- **Part 1**: Data preparation, model fitting -->
<!-- What does "all possible random slopes" mean here? -->
<!-- * Hint: are there any word-level or speaker-level variables? -->
<!-- Code the data as "centered": -->
<!-- * Make numeric and centered versions of `following` and `morph` -->
<!-- * Make a standardized (centered+scaled) version of `speechrate` -->
<!-- Discard all but the first 2000 observations of the dataset. (This makes the dataset size comparable to most previous work on t/d deletion.) -->
<!-- Fit a mixed-effects logistic regression model, called `ex2.mod`, of `td` as a function of: -->
<!-- * Fixed effects: main effects for all three variables -->
<!-- * Random effects: -->
<!-- * All possible by-speaker and by-word random effects -->
<!-- * No correlations between random effects -->
<!-- **Part 2**: Interpretation -->
<!-- * Are the fixed effects in the expected direction? -->
<!-- Now, fit the same model but without any by-word random effects. (This is close to the model fitted in most previous work.) -->
<!-- * How do the results change (esp. for `morph`)? -->
<!-- * Why do you think this is? -->
<!-- * (Hint: word frequency) -->
## Model criticism for mixed-effects logistic regression
Model criticism tools are mostly similar to those used for logistic regression (see discussion in Sec. \@ref(model-criticism-logistic-regression)),
<!-- (@baayen2008analyzing), -->
with one addition for mixed-effects models: **examining random-effect distributions**, to address whether
* they are approximately normal
* they show evidence of outlier participants or items.
### Random-effect distributions
We use [Model 1](#c7m1) as an example. Recall that the random effects are:
* By-participant: intercept, slopes of `clabel.williams`, `npType.pron`, `voice.passive`
* By-item: intercept, slopes of `clabel.williams` and `npType.pron`
In the pairwise plot of by-participant random effects:
```{r, fig.align='center'}
pairscor.fnc(ranef(lrMod1)$participant)
```
There are no obvious outliers. One possible outlier is the participant with the highest random intercept value (lower-right plot, right-most point).
In the pairwise plot of by-item random effects:
```{r, fig.align='center'}
pairscor.fnc(ranef(lrMod1)$item)
```
There are no obvious outliers.
All histograms in these two plots look roughly like normal distributions, suggesting no substantial deviations from the normality-of-random-effects assumption. This isn't surprising, given that the model is assuming random effects are normally distributed. It would be better to check the distributions of participant and item empirical means, and of empirical slopes for each predictor. We leave this as an exercise.
<!-- (TODO: fill in example) -->
### Residual plots
<!-- TODO FUTURE: fill this part in. This is actually useful -->
We will skip these, for lack of time. Residual plots for MELR are similar to logistic regression, and similar issues arise (see Sec. \@ref(residual-plots)).
* Raw residuals are uninformative, since the model predicts probabilities but observations are 0 or 1.
* Work-arounds exist: binned residuals (calculated using functions in the `arm` package) or deviance residuals.
### Influence
[For non-mixed-effects regression models](#logistic-regression-cooks-distance), we used **Cook's distance** as a measure of influence, roughly defined as "how much do the model coefficients ($\hat{\beta}$'s) change when observation $i$ is removed?"
Cook's distance can be similarly defined for mixed-effects models, at each "level" of the model:
* How much do the fixed-effect coefficients ($\hat{\beta}$'s) change when observation $i$ is removed?
* **or** `` `` when participant $j$ is removed?
* **or** `` `` when item $k$ is removed?
That is, there can be influential items, participants (etc.), or observations.
Unlike for non-mixed models, there is no formula to compute Cook's distance: you have to actually refit the model without a given observation/participant/item to check how much the model changes. The `influence` function in the `influenceME` package does this for you. (It also works for linear mixed-effects models.)
**Warning**: because `influence()` refits the model $J$ times for $J$ levels (e.g. participants), or $n$ times for $n$ observations, it can take a very long time.
#### Example: Compute influence of each participant for Model 1 {-}
```{r, message=FALSE, cache=TRUE}
m1.influence.partic <- influence(lrMod1, group="participant")
# Create data frame with cooks distance for each participant label:
cd=cooks.distance(m1.influence.partic)
# Histogram of cook's distance:
qplot(cd) + xlab("Histogram Cook's distance (participants)")
```
Two participants seem to have an unusual influence (as measured by cook's distance). How do you know which ones?
* The row names in the object `cd` tell you the participant number.
* You could just look at the individual values (type `cd` at R prompt), but it's easier if you sort these values in descending order (the command used here assures that we keep the row names with the the participant number):
```{r, message=FALSE}
cd[order(-cd),,drop = FALSE]
```
It's even easier if you plot the individual distances:
```{r, message=FALSE}
# Cook's distance for each individual participant, ordred by distance:
cooksDistance=data.frame(participant=rownames(cd),CD=cd)
ggplot(data=cooksDistance,aes(x = reorder(participant,CD),y = CD)) + geom_point() + xlab('Cook\'s distance for each participant') + theme(axis.text.x = element_text(angle = 45, hjust = 1))
```
There are two very influential participants: 548 and (most influential) 530. These turn out to be the two participants with the strongest `voice` effects.^[To see this, plot participant's Cook's distance values against their `voice` random slope values (`ranef(lrMod1)$participant[['voice.passive']]`).]
We could also examine the influence of each item or each observation:
```{r, eval=F}
influence(lrMod1, group="item")
influence(lrMod1, obs=T)
```
#### Detour: What can an influential participant do? {-}
Participant 530 was noted above as a potential outlier---s/he has the highest Cook's distance. It is good practice to see what happens if influential participants (etc.) are omitted.
Compare the models fitted to the dataset with and without this participant:
```{r, cache=TRUE}
lrMod1.no530 <- update(lrMod1, . ~ ., data=filter(givenness, participant!=530))
summary(lrMod1)$coefficients
summary(lrMod1.no530)$coefficients
```
We see that excluding this participant:
* Strengthens the effects of `clabel.williams` and `npType.pron` (higher effect size, lower $p$-value)
* Lessens the effect of `voice.passive` (much lower effect size, higher $p$-value)
Thus, excluding this participant makes the results a little clearer (the non-significant result is now very weak; the significant results are even stronger), but doesn't change any qualitative conclusion. One could either exclude this participant or not in reporting the model, but the **existence** of this influential participant should be reported regardless.
This example illustrates why examining influence can be beneficial, beyond simply checking whether model assumptions are satisfied: you may find that some participants or items behave very differently from others, and are obscuring clearer results.
## Evaluation measures
As [for logistic regression](#evaluating-logistic-regression-models), mixed-effects logistic regression models are evaluated by comparing **baseline** and **full** models. We considered these comparison methods:
1. Likelihood ratio test
2. Classification accuracy
For mixed-effects models, the baseline model is usually taken to be the **intercepts-only model**, which contains random intercepts for each grouping factor (e.g. participant, item) and the fixed-effect intercept ($\beta_0$).
For our [Model 1](#c7m1), the baseline intercepts-only model would be:
```{r}
m0 <- glmer(stressshift ~ (1|item) + (1|participant), data=givenness, family="binomial")
```
This baseline can be interpreted as "participants and items vary in ($P$(shift stress))", or "how well can the response (`stressshift`) be predicted, without adding any information about the predictors?"" Note that for **new data** (unseen participants or items), the baseline model will just predict the most common outcome---which is exactly what the baseline model for (non-mixed-effects) logistic regression does.
Comparing the baseline model to the full model asks: how much does the model improve by adding information about the predictors? Note that this means both fixed-effect coefficients and random slopes---and either could significantly improve likelihood.
### Evaluation measure 1: Likelihood ratio test
As we've now seen in many cases, the difference in deviance between the baseline ($M_0$) and full ($M_1$) models:
\begin{equation*}
\Delta D = -2 \log \frac{L(M_0)}{L(M_1)}
\end{equation*}
can be used for a hypothesis-test for large enough samples. If any set of $k$ terms (fixed-effects $\beta$'s and/or random-effect $\sigma$'s) are 0, $\Delta D$ follows a $\chi^2(k)$ distribution. Thus, we can test the hypothesis that these $k$ terms are 0 using a likelihood ratio test.
For our [Model 1](#c7m1), a LR test comparing the full model to the baseline gives:
```{r}
anova(m0, lrMod1)
```
Thus, adding these three predictors significantly improves the model ($\Delta D = 168.8$, $df=8$, $p< 0.0001$).
### Evaluation measure 2: Classification accuracy
Classification accuracy is defined similarly to (non-mixed-effects) logistic regression. For each observation, the model is used to predict the probability that the response is 1 ($Y=1$) for observation $i$, and this probability is used to predict the value of $y_i$:
\begin{equation*}
\hat{y}_i =
\begin{cases}
1 & \text{if } \hat{p}_i > 0.5 \\
0 & \text{if } \hat{p}_i \leq 0.5
\end{cases}
\end{equation*}
*Classification accuracy* is the percent of these predictions that are the same as the observed responses $y_i$.
As for non-ME case, a model's classification accuracy must be compared against the baseline model's accuracy.
For our [Model 1](#c7m1):
```{r}
lrAcc(lrMod1, 'stressshift')
```
classification accuracy is 86%, compared to 65% for the baseline model:
```{r}
baselineAcc(lrMod1, 'stressshift')
```
Note that the 86% classification accuracy uses the random-effect estimates for the participants and items in this data. That means it does not give a good estimate of what the model's accuracy would be on *unseen* data (new participants and items), which is what we usually care about. We can obtain this accuracy using model predictions for an "average" participant and item, which is equivalent to setting all random effect terms to zero. The `use.ranef=FALSE` flag does this for the `lrAcc()` function. Classification accuracy for an average participant/item is:
```{r}
lrAcc(lrMod1, 'stressshift', use.ranef=FALSE)
```
Thus, classification accuracy still improves over the baseline (14% increase), but by less than if computed over the participants/items in this dataset.
Note that all these measures are **observation-level**: they give the percent of observations classified correctly. This number is easy to report, but it should be remembered that we are usually interested in generalizing to new levels of the grouping factors (e.g. new participants and items)---not observations, per se. It is also possible to examine accuracy by participant and item, to get a sense of how well the model will predict an unseen level. We leave an example for a future version of this book.
<!-- as shown in the Appendix of Sec. \@ref(c7classAppendix). -->
<!-- TODO FUTURE: the example already in slides... -->
## Miscellaneous mixed-effects regression topics
There are two important practical issues that arise frequently while fitting mixed-effects models:
1. Factors and random effects
+ The same issue arises for MELR models as for linear mixed-effects models, discussed in Sec. \@ref(c6factorsissue): problems arise if you want to use factors in models with uncorrelated random effects. An example for MELR models is in [an appendix](#melr-random-slopes-for-factors).
2. Correlations among random effects
+ We discuss this issue next.
### Random-effect correlation issues {#c7m2}
Let's consider [Model 1](#c7m1) with correlations between random effects added, which we call **Model 2**:
```{r, cache=TRUE}
lrMod2 <- glmer(stressshift ~ clabel.williams + npType.pron + voice.passive +
(1 + clabel.williams + npType.pron|item) +
(1 + clabel.williams + npType.pron + voice.passive|participant),
data=givenness, family="binomial",control=glmerControl(optimizer = "bobyqa"))
```
The model's random-effect terms are:
```{r}
summary(lrMod2)$varcor
```
Several correlations are 1 or -1, indicating perfect correlation between random-effect terms. This is highly unlikely to reflect reality (e.g. a speaker's William effect is 100% predictable from their rate of stress shifting). Instead, usually **correlations near 1 or -1 signal a problem** in fitting the model. Models with **perfect** random-effect correlations (or where some random effect variances are 0, but this seems to be less of a problem) are "singular fits": see technical/practical discussion by Ben Bolker [here](https://bbolker.github.io/mixedmodels-misc/glmmFAQ.html#singular-models-random-effect-variances-estimated-as-zero-or-correlations-estimated-as---1)
(Near-)perfect random effect correlations can result from:
1. Uncentered or collinear predictors
2. A problem in how the model is specified
3. There not being enough data to estimate the correlation terms.
Case 1 is sometimes resolvable by transforming your data: centering continuous variables and using contrast-coding schemes where contrasts are sum-to-zero and orthogonal. Case 2 means you did something wrong---such as trying to fit an uncorrelated random effect for a factor `X` using the formula `(1+X|participant)`, or using predictors that are linearly dependent in the random-effect formula.
In Case 3, the model is said to be *overparametrized*: the random-effect structure of the model is too complex for the amount of data---either in terms of observations, or the number of levels of a grouping factor. That is, too many random effect terms are being estimated given the dataset size. (Intuitively: if there are 10 speakers and 10 random effect terms, the model is roughly trying to fit 10 variables using 10 numbers---for which there will be no unique 'best' solution.)
Overparametrization is very common (in 2018) in linguistic data, and is probably responsible for the perfect correlations in Model 2:
* There are 16 items, from which 6 by-item random-effect terms are being estimated (1 intercept, 2 slopes, 3 correlations).
* There are 27 participants, from which 10 by-participant `` `` (1 intercept, 3 slopes, 6 correlations).
The issue of high random effect correlations:
* occurs easily (in 2018) for the dataset sizes/number of grouping factor levels typical in linguistic data.
* is often problematic (e.g. can cause Type I errors), even if the model converges.
<!-- How to deal with this issue? -->
It is not clear that there is a general solution to deal with this issue, without moving to Bayesian mixed-effects models (see [below](#bayesian-mems)). One "backwards elimination" option, similar to that recommended by @barr2013random, is:
1. Iteratively remove correlations until remaining correlations are sensible.
2. Check using model comparison that the difference in likelihood ratio from the model with all correlations (even if it didn't converge) isn't significant.
An alternative "forward" method is:
1. Start with the no-correlations model (with all possible random slopes).
2. Add correlations iteratively, from examining pairwise plots of random effects, using model comparison.
Ben Bolker's FAQ [here](https://bbolker.github.io/mixedmodels-misc/glmmFAQ.html#singular-models-random-effect-variances-estimated-as-zero-or-correlations-estimated-as---1) gives some other possibilities.
The "backwards" and "forwards" strategies often work, but they are ad-hoc solutions. We first give an example of the "backward" strategy, then show an alternative (fit a Bayesian MELR model) that is cleaner, at the expense of fitting a model whose architecture is quite different from the original (problematic) model.
#### Example: Dropping correlation terms
First, drop one of the perfect correlations:
```{r, cache=TRUE}
lrMod2.red1 <- update(lrMod2, . ~ . - (1+clabel.williams+npType.pron|item) + (1+clabel.williams|item) + (0+npType.pron|item))
```
The resulting model still has a perfect correlation among the by-item random effects:
```{r}
summary(lrMod2.red1)$varcor
```
Next, drop this correlation:
```{r, cache=TRUE}
lrMod2.red2 <- update(lrMod2, . ~ . - (1+clabel.williams+npType.pron|item) + (1|item) + (0+clabel.williams|item) + (0+npType.pron|item))
```
The resulting model has no more near-perfect correlations:
```{r}
summary(lrMod2.red2)$varcor
```
Finally, do a likelihood ratio test comparing the models with and without the correlation terms:
```{r}
anova(lrMod2, lrMod2.red2)
```
The models do not differ significantly ($\Delta D = 5.6$, $df=3$, $p=0.13$), suggesting that removing the correlation terms cannot have made much difference. Crucially, none of the fixed-effect terms---which are usually of primary interest---have qualitatively changed.
We don't give an example here of the "forward strategy". What's crucial to remember when worrying about random-effect correlations is that **whether/which correlations added is less important than including random slopes**, as we discussed for LMEMs in Sec. \@ref(c6discuss).
#### Example: Bayesian MEMs {#bayesian-mems}
Another way to deal with overparametrized models is to fit a different class of model entirely: a *Bayesian mixed-effects model*. In Bayesian regression models, each parameter has a "prior distribution" specifying how likely different parameter values are thought to be, a priori; these distributions are updated using the actual data, resulting in a "posterior distribution", which describes how likely different parameter values are given the observed data *and* the prior. These distributions can be summarized to give familiar-looking model output: a most-likely value for each parameter (the "fixed-effect estimate": usually the posterior mode (MAP)), a "$p$-value" of sorts estimated by where 0 lies on the posterior distribution for a parameter, and so on.
<!-- ^[In fact, a (non-Bayesian) mixed-effects model can be thought of as a Bayesian model with an "uninformative" prior (TODO MORGAN: reference?)---different parameter values are almost equally likely, a priori, and the posterior distribution is mostly determined by maximizing likelihood given the data.] -->
<!-- MS in 2018: I don't think that's actually true, or if it is I can't find a source. The fact that models fit by ML or REML might mean that we can think of this as MAP inference with "flat" priors, but not sure. The fact that variance params are first fit to point estimates, then fixed-effect params estimated conditional on variance param estimates, makes me think it's not the same as actual inference over a Bayesian model where both variance and fixed-effect params have distributions. -->
The crucial aspect of Bayesian models for present purposes is that with properly chosen priors, they cannot give a non-nonsensical result due to overparametrization (perfect random-effect correlations)---having less data to estimate a parameter just means the prior will have more influence on the posterior distribution for that parameter (and hence its MAP estimate).^[That said, Bayesian MEMs can still be overparametrized (too complex for the data)---the resulting model will be more influenced by the priors, and will not generalize well to new data. See @bates2015parsimonious for discussion.]
For Bayesian mixed-effects models, the standard prior (Wishart) used for the random-effects covariance matrix (all random effects variances + correlations) is an "informative" prior where correlation parameters closer to 0 are progressively more likely. This pulls the estimates for these correlation parameters towards zero, and avoids perfect (1 or -1) values.
The [`blme` package](https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/blme/index.html) extends the `lme4` package to fit Bayesian mixed-effects models (@Chung2013likelihood). The `lmer` and `glmer` functions (from the `lme4` package) become functions called `blmer` and `bglmer`. Particular choices of prior for the fixed and random effects are made by default, and you can just use the same model formula as for your `lmer` and `glmer` model, adding a `b`. For our [Model 2](#c7m2):
```{r, cache=TRUE}
library(blme)
lrMod2.bayesian <- bglmer(stressshift ~ clabel.williams + npType.pron + voice.passive +
(1 + clabel.williams + npType.pron|item) +
(1 + clabel.williams + npType.pron + voice.passive|participant),
data=givenness, family="binomial",control=glmerControl(optimizer = "bobyqa"))
```
The resulting model has no near-perfect correlations:
```{r}
summary(lrMod2.bayesian)
```
This seems like a great solution---no need for hackily removing terms, as in the "backwards" method above. You should just be aware that these (Bayesian) models are quite different from non-Bayesian ME models, and it's up to you whether you are comfortable using them without learning more about how they work. The resulting models are not simply `(g)lmer` fits with different correlation parameters---as you can see by comparing the fixed and random effects for `lrMod2.bayesian` (above) and `lrMod2`:
```{r}
print(summary(lrMod2), corr=FALSE)
```
* Fixed effects estimates/SEs consistently larger/smaller in the Bayesian model
* Random effect variances/correlations consistently further/closer to 0 in the Bayesian model
It is possible that the Bayesian model is actually giving more accurate estimates---the point here is that it gives **different** estimates from the `(g)lmer` model.
## Other readings
On MELR models: Ch. 14 of @gelman2007data is a good general reference, while @jaeger08 and Ch 7.4 of @johnson2008quantitative are shorter introductions for language scientists in particular.
To learn more about Bayesian MEMs: @sorensen2015bayesian and @nicenboim2016statistical give (longer/shorter) introductions for language scientists.
<!-- using [Stan](http://mc-stan.org/). -->
Bayesian MEMs are one type of Bayesian data analysis, a broader set of methods to which @kruschke2014doing and @mcelreath2015statistical give accessible introductions using R.
## Appendices
### Appendix: Random slopes for factors {#melr-random-slopes-for-factors}
<!-- * This is miscellaneous but important topic in practical applications -->
<!-- * Have so far only looked at factors with 2 levels in mixed models -->
<!-- * Factors with >2 levels a little tricker -->
How to deal with factors with more than 2 levels is an important issue in practical applications of MELR models. We show an example using the [`alternatives` dataset](#altdata). Recall [the basic results](#basic-interpretation-of-contrasts), for how the probability of shifting stress (to `prominence` = *Adjective*, from *Noun*) depends on `context`:
```{r, echo=F, fig.align='center', fig.width=4, fig.height=4}
# code prominence shift
alternatives$prominence.ID <- 1
alternatives$prominence.ID[alternatives$prominence == "Noun"] <- 0
# reorder factor levels
alternatives$context <- factor(alternatives$context, levels = c("Alternative", "NoAlternative", "New"))
alt2 <- aggregate(prominence.ID ~ context, data = alternatives, FUN = mean)
alt2SE <- aggregate(prominence.ID ~ context, data = alternatives,
FUN = function(x) sd(x)/sqrt(length(x)))
alt3 <- cbind(alt2, alt2SE$prominence.ID)
names(alt3) <- c(names(alt2), "se")
ggplot(alt3, aes(x = context, y = prominence.ID, color = context)) +
geom_errorbar(aes(ymin=prominence.ID-se, ymax=prominence.ID+se), width=0.2) +
ylab("P(adj stressed)") +
theme(legend.position="none")
```
The probability of shifting stress decreases from *Alternative* to *NoAlternative* to *New*.
We previously examined this data using a logistic regression, and will now use a mixed-effects logistic regression model.
In this model:
* The response is `prominence` (*adjective* or *noun*)
* The predictor is `context` (*Alternative*, *NoAlternative*, *New*)
* We include all possible random slopes and intercepts (by-participant and by-item), **with** correlations
```{r, echo=F, cache=TRUE}
## re-order factor levels to get intuitive order
alternatives$context <- factor(alternatives$context, levels = c("Alternative", "NoAlternative", "New"))
## give 'context' varable Helmert coding
## contrast 1: NoAlt vs. Alt
## contrast 2: New vs NoAlt/Alt
contrasts(alternatives$context) <- contr.helmert(3)
## add a 0/1 variable where 1 = adj prominence (shifted), 0 = N prominence
alternatives <- alternatives %>% mutate(shifted = -1*as.numeric(prominence)+2)
alternativesMod1 <- glmer(prominence ~ context +
(1+context|item) +
(1+context|participant),
data=alternatives,
family="binomial",
control=glmerControl(optimizer = "bobyqa"))
```
```{r}
summary(alternativesMod1)
```
The random-effect correlations in this model have the issue [discussed above](#c7m2): some correlations are near perfect ($r \approx 0.95$), indicating that the model is probably overparametrized. We can deal with this by omitting the correlation terms.
### Appendix: Multi-level factors and uncorrelated random effects {#c7appendix2}
(Only look through this section if you have a factor with multiple levels and you run into correlations that are too high.)
[As with linear mixed-effects models](#lmem-mwrec), in order to fit a model with no correlations between random effects, any factor must be converted into numeric variables corresponding to the contrasts (the notation `||` will not work when a factor has >2 levels!):
```{r}
alternatives$context1 <- model.matrix(~context, alternatives)[,2]
alternatives$context2 <- model.matrix(~context, alternatives)[,3]