Interval bias in 2AFC detection tasks: sorting out the artifacts

Proportion correct in two-alternative forcedchoice (2AFC) detection tasks often varies when the stimulus is presented in the first or in the second interval.Reanalysis of published data reveals that these order effects (or interval bias) are strong and prevalent, refuting the standard difference model of signal detection theory. Order effects are commonly regarded as evidence that observers use an off-center criterion under the difference model with bias. We consider an alternative difference model with indecision whereby observers are occasionally undecided and guess with some bias toward one of the response options. Whether or not the data show order effects, the two models fit 2AFC data indistinguishably, but they yield meaningfully different estimates of sensory parameters. Under indeterminacy as to which model governs 2AFC performance, parameter estimates are suspect and potentially misleading. The indeterminacy can be circumvented by modifying the response format so that observers can express indecision when needed. Reanalysis of published data collected in this way lends support to the indecision model. We illustrate alternative approaches to fitting psychometric functions under the indecision model and discuss designs for 2AFC experiments that improve the accuracy of parameter estimates, whether or not order effects are apparent in the data.

Evidence for reciprocal antagonism between motion sensors tuned to coarse and fine features

Early visual processing analyses fine and coarse image features separately. Here we show that motion signals derived from fine and coarse analyses are combined in rather a surprising way: Coarse and fine motion sensors representing the same direction of motion inhibit one another and an imbalance can reverse the motion perceived. Observers judged the direction of motion of patches of filtered two-dimensional noise, centered on 1 and 3 cycles/deg. When both sets of noise were present and only the 3 cycles/deg noise moved, judgments were reversed at short durations. When both sets of noise moved, judgments were correct but sensitivity was impaired. Reversals and impairments occurred both with isotropic noise and with orientation-filtered noise. The reversals and impairments could be simulated in a model of motion sensing by adding a stage in which the outputs of motion sensors tuned to 1 and 3 cycles/deg and the same direction of motion were subtracted from one another. The subtraction model predicted and we confirmed in experiments with orientation-filtered noise that if the 1 cycle/deg noise flickered and the 3 cycles/deg noise moved, the 1 cycle/deg noise appeared to move in the opposite direction to the 3 cycles/deg noise even at long durations.

Converging evidence that common timing processes underlie temporal-order and simultaneity judgments: a model-based analysis

Perception of simultaneity and temporal order is studied with simultaneity judgment (SJ) and temporal-order judgment (TOJ) tasks. In the former, observers report whether presentation of two stimuli was subjectively simultaneous; in the latter, they report which stimulus was subjectively presented first. SJ and TOJ tasks typically give discrepant results, which has prompted the view that performance is mediated by different processes in each task. We looked at these discrepancies from a model that yields psychometric functions whose parameters characterize the timing, decisional, and response processes involved in SJ and TOJ tasks. We analyzed 12 data sets from published studies in which both tasks had been used in within-subjects designs, all of which had reported differences in performance across tasks. Fitting the model jointly to data from both tasks, we tested the hypothesis that common timing processes sustain simultaneity and temporal order judgments, with differences in performance arising from task-dependent decisional and response processes. The results supported this hypothesis, also showing that model psychometric functions account for aspects of SJ and TOJ data that classical analyses overlook. Implications for research on perception of simultaneity and temporal order are discussed.

The left visual field attentional advantage: No evidence of different speeds of processing across visual hemifields.

Temporal-order judgment (TOJ) and simultaneity judgment (SJ) tasks are used to study differences in speed of processing across sensory modalities, stimulus types, or experimental conditions. Matthews and Welch (2015) reported that observed performance in SJ and TOJ tasks is superior when visual stimuli are presented in the left visual field (LVF) compared to the right visual field (RVF), revealing an LVF advantage presumably reflecting attentional influences. Because observed performance reflects the interplay of perceptual and decisional processes involved in carrying out the tasks, analyses that separate out these influences are needed to determine the origin of the LVF advantage. We re-analyzed the data of Matthews and Welch (2015) using a model of performance in SJ and TOJ tasks that separates out these influences. Parameter estimates capturing the operation of perceptual processes did not differ between hemifields by these analyses, whereas parameter estimates capturing the operation of decisional processes differed. In line with other evidence, perceptual processing also did not differ between SJ and TOJ tasks. Thus, the LVF advantage occurs with identical speeds of processing in both visual hemifields. If attention is responsible for the LVF advantage, it does not exert its influence via prior entry.

Fitting model-based psychometric functions to simultaneity and temporal-order judgment data: MATLAB and R routines

Research on temporal-order perception uses temporal-order judgment (TOJ) tasks or synchrony judgment (SJ) tasks in their binary SJ2 or ternary SJ3 variants. In all cases, two stimuli are presented with some temporal delay, and observers judge the order of presentation. Arbitrary psychometric functions are typically fitted to obtain performance measures such as sensitivity or the point of subjective simultaneity, but the parameters of these functions are uninterpretable. We describe routines in MATLAB and R that fit model-based functions whose parameters are interpretable in terms of the processes underlying temporal-order and simultaneity judgments and responses. These functions arise from an independent-channels model assuming arrival latencies with exponential distributions and a trichotomous decision space. Different routines fit data separately for SJ2, SJ3, and TOJ tasks, jointly for any two tasks, or also jointly for the three tasks (for common cases in which two or even the three tasks were used with the same stimuli and participants). Additional routines provide bootstrap p-values and confidence intervals for estimated parameters. A further routine is included that obtains performance measures from the fitted functions. An R package for Windows and source code of the MATLAB and R routines are available as Supplementary Files.

Shifts of the psychometric function: distinguishing bias from perceptual effects.

Morgan, Dillenburger, Raphael, and Solomon have shown that observers can use different response strategies when unsure of their answer, and, thus, they can voluntarily shift the location of the psychometric function estimated with the method of single stimuli (MSS; sometimes also referred to as the single-interval, two-alternative method). They wondered whether MSS could distinguish response bias from a true perceptual effect that would also shift the location of the psychometric function. We demonstrate theoretically that the inability to distinguish response bias from perceptual effects is an inherent shortcoming of MSS, although a three-response format including also an "undecided" response option may solve the problem under restrictive assumptions whose validity cannot be tested with MSS data. We also show that a proper two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) task with the three-response format is free of all these problems so that bias and perceptual effects can easily be separated out. The use of a three-response 2AFC format is essential to eliminate a confound (response bias) in studies of perceptual effects and, hence, to eliminate a threat to the internal validity of research in this area.

On the discrepant results in synchrony judgment and temporal-order judgment tasks: a quantitative model.

Research on the perception of temporal order uses either temporal-order judgment (TOJ) tasks or synchrony judgment (SJ) tasks, in both of which two stimuli are presented with some temporal delay and observers must judge the order of presentation. Results generally differ across tasks, raising concerns about whether they measure the same processes. We present a model including sensory and decisional parameters that places these tasks in a common framework that allows studying their implications on observed performance. TOJ tasks imply specific decisional components that explain the discrepancy of results obtained with TOJ and SJ tasks. The model is also tested against published data on audiovisual temporal-order judgments, and the fit is satisfactory, although model parameters are more accurately estimated with SJ tasks. Measures of latent point of subjective simultaneity and latent sensitivity are defined that are invariant across tasks by isolating the sensory parameters governing observed performance, whereas decisional parameters vary across tasks and account for observed differences across them. Our analyses concur with other evidence advising against the use of TOJ tasks in research on perception of temporal order.

Improving the estimation of psychometric functions in 2AFC discrimination tasks.

Ulrich and Vorberg (2009) presented a method that fits distinct functions for each order of presentation of standard and test stimuli in a two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) discrimination task, which removes the contaminating influence of order effects from estimates of the difference limen. The two functions are fitted simultaneously under the constraint that their average evaluates to 0.5 when test and standard have the same magnitude, which was regarded as a general property of 2AFC tasks. This constraint implies that physical identity produces indistinguishability, which is valid when test and standard are identical except for magnitude along the dimension of comparison. However, indistinguishability does not occur at physical identity when test and standard differ on dimensions other than that along which they are compared (e.g., vertical and horizontal lines of the same length are not perceived to have the same length). In these cases, the method of Ulrich and Vorberg cannot be used. We propose a generalization of their method for use in such cases and illustrate it with data from a 2AFC experiment involving length discrimination of horizontal and vertical lines. The resultant data could be fitted with our generalization but not with the method of Ulrich and Vorberg. Further extensions of this method are discussed.

A model for the time-order error in contrast discrimination.

Trials in a temporal two-interval forced-choice discrimination experiment consist of two sequential intervals presenting stimuli that differ from one another as to magnitude along some continuum. The observer must report in which interval the stimulus had a larger magnitude. The standard difference model from signal detection theory analyses poses that order of presentation should not affect the results of the comparison, something known as the balance condition (J.-C. Falmagne, 1985, in Elements of Psychophysical Theory). But empirical data prove otherwise and consistently reveal what Fechner (1860/1966, in Elements of Psychophysics) called time-order errors, whereby the magnitude of the stimulus presented in one of the intervals is systematically underestimated relative to the other. Here we discuss sensory factors (temporary desensitization) and procedural glitches (short interstimulus or intertrial intervals and response bias) that might explain the time-order error, and we derive a formal model indicating how these factors make observed performance vary with presentation order despite a single underlying mechanism. Experimental results are also presented illustrating the conventional failure of the balance condition and testing the hypothesis that time-order errors result from contamination by the factors included in the model.

Psychometric functions for detection and discrimination with and without flankers.

Recent studies have reported that flanking stimuli broaden the psychometric function and lower detection thresholds. In the present study, we measured psychometric functions for detection and discrimination with and without flankers to investigate whether these effects occur throughout the contrast continuum. Our results confirm that lower detection thresholds with flankers are accompanied by broader psychometric functions. Psychometric functions for discrimination reveal that discrimination thresholds with and without flankers are similar across standard levels, and that the broadening of psychometric functions with flankers disappears as standard contrast increases, to the point that psychometric functions at high standard levels are virtually identical with or without flankers. Threshold-versus-contrast (TvC) curves with flankers only differ from TvC curves without flankers in occasional shallower dippers and lower branches on the left of the dipper, but they run virtually superimposed at high standard levels. We discuss differences between our results and other results in the literature, and how they are likely attributed to the differential vulnerability of alternative psychophysical procedures to the effects of presentation order. We show that different models of flanker facilitation can fit the data equally well, which stresses that succeeding at fitting a model does not validate it in any sense.

Reminder and 2AFC tasks provide similar estimates of the difference limen: a reanalysis of data from Lapid, Ulrich, and Rammsayer (2008) and a discussion of Ulrich and Vorberg (2009)

Lapid, Ulrich, and Rammsayer (2008) reported that estimates of the difference limen (DL) from a two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) task are higher than those obtained from a reminder task. This article reanalyzes their data in order to correct an error in their estimates of the DL from 2AFC data. We also extend the psychometric functions fitted to data from both tasks to incorporate an extra parameter that has been shown to allow obtaining accurate estimates of the DL that are unaffected by lapses. Contrary to Lapid et al.'s conclusion, our reanalysis shows that DLs estimated with the 2AFC task are only minimally (and not always significantly) larger than those estimated with the reminder task. We also show that their data are contaminated by response bias, and that the small remaining difference between DLs estimated with 2AFC and reminder tasks can be reasonably attributed to the differential effects that response bias has in either task as they were defined in Lapid et al.'s experiments. Finally, we discuss a novel approach presented by Ulrich and Vorberg (2009) for fitting psychometric functions to 2AFC discrimination data.

Fixed vs. variable noise in 2AFC contrast discrimination: lessons from psychometric functions.

Recent discussion regarding whether the noise that limits 2AFC discrimination performance is fixed or variable has focused either on describing experimental methods that presumably dissociate the effects of response mean and variance or on reanalyzing a published data set with the aim of determining how to solve the question through goodness-of-fit statistics. This paper illustrates that the question cannot be solved by fitting models to data and assessing goodness-of-fit because data on detection and discrimination performance can be indistinguishably fitted by models that assume either type of noise when each is coupled with a convenient form for the transducer function. Thus, success or failure at fitting a transducer model merely illustrates the capability (or lack thereof) of some particular combination of transducer function and variance function to account for the data, but it cannot disclose the nature of the noise. We also comment on some of the issues that have been raised in recent exchange on the topic, namely, the existence of additional constraints for the models, the presence of asymmetric asymptotes, the likelihood of history-dependent noise, and the potential of certain experimental methods to dissociate the effects of response mean and variance.

Bayesian adaptive estimation of arbitrary points on a psychometric function

Bayesian adaptive methods have been extensively used in psychophysics to estimate the point at which performance on a task attains arbitrary percentage levels, although the statistical properties of these estimators have never been assessed. We used simulation techniques to determine the small-sample properties of Bayesian estimators of arbitrary performance points, specifically addressing the issues of bias and precision as a function of the target percentage level. The study covered three major types of psychophysical task (yes-no detection, 2AFC discrimination and 2AFC detection) and explored the entire range of target performance levels allowed for by each task. Other factors included in the study were the form and parameters of the actual psychometric function Psi, the form and parameters of the model function M assumed in the Bayesian method, and the location of Psi within the parameter space. Our results indicate that Bayesian adaptive methods render unbiased estimators of any arbitrary point on psi only when M=Psi, and otherwise they yield bias whose magnitude can be considerable as the target level moves away from the midpoint of the range of Psi. The standard error of the estimator also increases as the target level approaches extreme values whether or not M=Psi. Contrary to widespread belief, neither the performance level at which bias is null nor that at which standard error is minimal can be predicted by the sweat factor. A closed-form expression nevertheless gives a reasonable fit to data describing the dependence of standard error on number of trials and target level, which allows determination of the number of trials that must be administered to obtain estimates with prescribed precision.

A comparison of fixed-step-size and Bayesian staircases for sensory threshold estimation

Fixed-step-size (FSS) and Bayesian staircases are widely used methods to estimate sensory thresholds in 2AFC tasks, although a direct comparison of both types of procedure under identical conditions has not previously been reported. A simulation study and an empirical test were conducted to compare the performance of optimized Bayesian staircases with that of four optimized variants of FSS staircase differing as to up-down rule. The ultimate goal was to determine whether FSS or Bayesian staircases are the best choice in experimental psychophysics. The comparison considered the properties of the estimates (i.e. bias and standard errors) in relation to their cost (i.e. the number of trials to completion). The simulation study showed that mean estimates of Bayesian and FSS staircases are dependable when sufficient trials are given and that, in both cases, the standard deviation (SD) of the estimates decreases with number of trials, although the SD of Bayesian estimates is always lower than that of FSS estimates (and thus, Bayesian staircases are more efficient). The empirical test did not support these conclusions, as (1) neither procedure rendered estimates converging on some value, (2) standard deviations did not follow the expected pattern of decrease with number of trials, and (3) both procedures appeared to be equally efficient. Potential factors explaining the discrepancies between simulation and empirical results are commented upon and, all things considered, a sensible recommendation is for psychophysicists to run no fewer than 18 and no more than 30 reversals of an FSS staircase implementing the 1-up/3-down rule.

The transducer model for contrast detection and discrimination: formal relations, implications, and an empirical test.

The transducer function mu for contrast perception describes the nonlinear mapping of stimulus contrast onto an internal response. Under a signal detection theory approach, the transducer model of contrast perception states that the internal response elicited by a stimulus of contrast c is a random variable with mean mu(c). Using this approach, we derive the formal relations between the transducer function, the threshold-versus-contrast (TvC) function, and the psychometric functions for contrast detection and discrimination in 2AFC tasks. We show that the mathematical form of the TvC function is determined only by mu, and that the psychometric functions for detection and discrimination have a common mathematical form with common parameters emanating from, and only from, the transducer function mu and the form of the distribution of the internal responses. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these relations, which have bearings on the tenability of certain mathematical forms for the psychometric function and on the suitability of empirical approaches to model validation. We also present the results of a comprehensive test of these relations using two alternative forms of the transducer model: a three-parameter version that renders logistic psychometric functions and a five-parameter version using Foley's variant of the Naka-Rushton equation as transducer function. Our results support the validity of the formal relations implied by the general transducer model, and the two versions that were contrasted account for our data equally well.