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.

The left visual field attentional advantage: No evidence of different speeds of processing across visual hemifields.

Temporal-order judgment (TOJ) and simultaneity judgment (SJ) tasks are used to study differences in speed of processing across sensory modalities, stimulus types, or experimental conditions. Matthews and Welch (2015) reported that observed performance in SJ and TOJ tasks is superior when visual stimuli are presented in the left visual field (LVF) compared to the right visual field (RVF), revealing an LVF advantage presumably reflecting attentional influences. Because observed performance reflects the interplay of perceptual and decisional processes involved in carrying out the tasks, analyses that separate out these influences are needed to determine the origin of the LVF advantage. We re-analyzed the data of Matthews and Welch (2015) using a model of performance in SJ and TOJ tasks that separates out these influences. Parameter estimates capturing the operation of perceptual processes did not differ between hemifields by these analyses, whereas parameter estimates capturing the operation of decisional processes differed. In line with other evidence, perceptual processing also did not differ between SJ and TOJ tasks. Thus, the LVF advantage occurs with identical speeds of processing in both visual hemifields. If attention is responsible for the LVF advantage, it does not exert its influence via prior entry.

A Comparison of Anchor-Item Designs for the Concurrent Calibration of Large Banks of Likert-Type Items

Current interest in measuring quality of life is generating interest in the construction of computerized adaptive tests (CATs) with Likert-type items. Calibration of an item bank for use in CAT requires collecting responses to a large number of candidate items. However, the number is usually too large to administer to each subject in the calibration sample. The concurrent anchor-item design solves this problem by splitting the items into separate subtests, with some common items across subtests; then administering each subtest to a different sample; and finally running estimation algorithms once on the aggregated data array, from which a substantial number of responses are then missing. Although the use of anchor-item designs is widespread, the consequences of several configuration decisions on the accuracy of parameter estimates have never been studied in the polytomous case. The present study addresses this question by simulation, comparing the outcomes of several alternatives on the configuration of the anchor-item design. The factors defining variants of the anchor-item design are (a) subtest size, (b) balance of common and unique items per subtest, (c) characteristics of the common items, and (d) criteria for the distribution of unique items across subtests. The results of this study indicate that maximizing accuracy in item parameter recovery requires subtests of the largest possible number of items and the smallest possible number of common items; the characteristics of the common items and the criterion for distribution of unique items do not affect accuracy.

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.