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.

Accommodative changes produced in response to overnight orthokeratology

Background To evaluate short-term (3 months) and long-term (3 years) accommodative changes produced by overnight orthokeratology (OK). Methods A prospective, longitudinal study on young adult subjects with low to moderate myopia was carried out. A total of 93 patients took part in the study. Out of these, 72 were enrolled into the short-term follow-up: 21 were on a control group, 26 on a Paragon CRT contact lenses group, and 25 on a Seefree contact lenses group. The other 21 patients were old CRT wearers on long-term follow-up. Accommodative function was assessed by means of negative and positive relative accommodation (NRA / PRA), monocular accommodative amplitude (MAA), accommodative lag, and monocular accommodative facility (MAF). These values were compared among the three short-term groups at the follow-up visit. The long- and short-term follow-up data was compared among the CRT groups. Results Subjective accommodative results did not suffer any statistically significant changes in any of the accommodative tests for any of the short-term groups when compared to baseline. There were no statistically significant differences between the three short-term groups at the follow-up visit. When comparing the short- and long-term groups, only the NRA showed a significant difference (p = 0.0006) among all the accommodation tests. Conclusions OK does not induce changes in the ocular accommodative function for either short-term or long-term periods.