Aniseikonia tests: The role of viewing mode, response bias, and size-color illusions.

PURPOSE To identify the factors responsible for the poor validity of the most common aniseikonia tests, which involve size comparisons of red-green stimuli presented haploscopically. METHODS Aniseikonia was induced by afocal size lenses placed before one eye. Observers compared the sizes of semicircles presented haploscopically via color filters. The main factor under study was viewing mode (free viewing versus short presentations under central fixation). To eliminate response bias, a three-response format allowed observers to respond if the left, the right, or neither semicircle appeared larger than the other. To control decisional (criterion) bias, measurements were taken with the lens-magnified stimulus placed on the left and on the right. To control for size-color illusions, measurements were made with color filters in both arrangements before the eyes and under binocular vision (without color filters). RESULTS Free viewing resulted in a systematic underestimation of lens-induced aniseikonia that was absent with short presentations. Significant size-color illusions and decisional biases were found that would be mistaken for aniseikonia unless appropriate action is taken. CONCLUSIONS To improve their validity, aniseikonia tests should use short presentations and include control conditions to prevent contamination from decisional/response biases. If anaglyphs are used, presence of size-color illusions must be checked for. TRANSLATIONAL RELEVANCE We identified optimal conditions for administration of aniseikonia tests and appropriate action for differential diagnosis of aniseikonia in the presence of response biases or size-color illusions. Our study has clinical implications for aniseikonia management.

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.

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.

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.