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.

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.