{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.036048064085447265, 'fraction_numerical': 0.006675567423230975, 'mean_word_length': 5.097560975609756, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Limiting unwanted cues via random rove applied to the yes-no and multiple-alternative forced choice paradigms.

When a random rove is used in a perceptual task to control the influence of an unwanted cue that may confound the decision strategy of primary interest, the effectiveness of the rove is determined by its range. Green [Profile Analysis (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1988)] provided a formula which allows experimenters to determine the roving range required to ensure that the listeners relying on the unwanted cue cannot exceed a pre-defined percentage of correct responses in a two-interval, two-alternative forced-choice experiment. Here, Green's analysis is extended to the yes-no and m-alternative, forced-choice paradigms (m>2).