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.

The role of parametric assumptions in adaptive Bayesian estimation.

Variants of adaptive Bayesian procedures for estimating the 5% point on a psychometric function were studied by simulation. Bias and standard error were the criteria to evaluate performance. The results indicated a superiority of (a) uniform priors, (b) model likelihood functions that are odd symmetric about threshold and that have parameter values larger than their counterparts in the psychometric function, (c) stimulus placement at the prior mean, and (d) estimates defined as the posterior mean. Unbiasedness arises in only 10 trials, and 20 trials ensure constant standard errors. The standard error of the estimates equals 0.617 times the inverse of the square root of the number of trials. Other variants yielded bias and larger standard errors.