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.

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.

The difference model with guessing explains interval bias in two-alternative forced- chocice detection procedures

The standard difference model of two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) tasks implies that performance should be the same when the target is presented in the first or the second interval. Empirical data often show “interval bias” in that percentage correct differs significantly when the signal is presented in the first or the second interval. We present an extension of the standard difference model that accounts for interval bias by incorporating an indifference zone around the null value of the decision variable. Analytical predictions are derived which reveal how interval bias may occur when data generated by the guessing model are analyzed as prescribed by the standard difference model. Parameter estimation methods and goodness-of-fit testing approaches for the guessing model are also developed and presented. A simulation study is included whose results show that the parameters of the guessing model can be estimated accurately. Finally, the guessing model is tested empirically in a 2AFC detection procedure in which guesses were explicitly recorded. The results support the guessing model and indicate that interval bias is not observed when guesses are separated out.

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.

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.

Stopping rules in Bayesian adaptive threshold estimation

Threshold estimation with sequential procedures is justifiable on the surmise that the index used in the so-called dynamic stopping rule has diagnostic value for identifying when an accurate estimate has been obtained. The performance of five types of Bayesian sequential procedure was compared here to that of an analogous fixed-length procedure. Indices for use in sequential procedures were: (1) the width of the Bayesian probability interval, (2) the posterior standard deviation, (3) the absolute change, (4) the average change, and (5) the number of sign fluctuations. A simulation study was carried out to evaluate which index renders estimates with less bias and smaller standard error at lower cost (i.e. lower average number of trials to completion), in both yes–no and two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) tasks. We also considered the effect of the form and parameters of the psychometric function and its similarity with themodel function assumed in the procedure. Our results show that sequential procedures do not outperform fixed-length procedures in yes–no tasks. However, in 2AFC tasks, sequential procedures not based on sign fluctuations all yield minimally better estimates than fixed-length procedures, although most of the improvement occurs with short runs that render undependable estimates and the differences vanish when the procedures run for a number of trials (around 70) that ensures dependability. Thus, none of the indices considered here (some of which are widespread) has the diagnostic value that would justify its use. In addition, difficulties of implementation make sequential procedures unfit as alternatives to fixed-length procedures.

Correction to “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)”

We recently published an article (García-Pérez & Alcalá- Quintana, 2010) reanalyzing data presented by Lapid, Ulrich, and Rammsayer (2008) and discussing a theoretical argument developed by Ulrich and Vorberg (2009). The purpose of this note is to correct an error in our study that has some theoretical importance, although it does not affect the conclusion that was raised. The error lies in that asymptote parameters reflecting lapses or finger errors should not enter the constraint relating the psychometric functions that describe performance when the comparison stimulus in a two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) discrimination task is presented in the first or second interval.