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.

Bayesian adaptive estimation of arbitrary points on a psychometric function

Bayesian adaptive methods have been extensively used in psychophysics to estimate the point at which performance on a task attains arbitrary percentage levels, although the statistical properties of these estimators have never been assessed. We used simulation techniques to determine the small-sample properties of Bayesian estimators of arbitrary performance points, specifically addressing the issues of bias and precision as a function of the target percentage level. The study covered three major types of psychophysical task (yes-no detection, 2AFC discrimination and 2AFC detection) and explored the entire range of target performance levels allowed for by each task. Other factors included in the study were the form and parameters of the actual psychometric function Psi, the form and parameters of the model function M assumed in the Bayesian method, and the location of Psi within the parameter space. Our results indicate that Bayesian adaptive methods render unbiased estimators of any arbitrary point on psi only when M=Psi, and otherwise they yield bias whose magnitude can be considerable as the target level moves away from the midpoint of the range of Psi. The standard error of the estimator also increases as the target level approaches extreme values whether or not M=Psi. Contrary to widespread belief, neither the performance level at which bias is null nor that at which standard error is minimal can be predicted by the sweat factor. A closed-form expression nevertheless gives a reasonable fit to data describing the dependence of standard error on number of trials and target level, which allows determination of the number of trials that must be administered to obtain estimates with prescribed precision.

A comparison of fixed-step-size and Bayesian staircases for sensory threshold estimation

Fixed-step-size (FSS) and Bayesian staircases are widely used methods to estimate sensory thresholds in 2AFC tasks, although a direct comparison of both types of procedure under identical conditions has not previously been reported. A simulation study and an empirical test were conducted to compare the performance of optimized Bayesian staircases with that of four optimized variants of FSS staircase differing as to up-down rule. The ultimate goal was to determine whether FSS or Bayesian staircases are the best choice in experimental psychophysics. The comparison considered the properties of the estimates (i.e. bias and standard errors) in relation to their cost (i.e. the number of trials to completion). The simulation study showed that mean estimates of Bayesian and FSS staircases are dependable when sufficient trials are given and that, in both cases, the standard deviation (SD) of the estimates decreases with number of trials, although the SD of Bayesian estimates is always lower than that of FSS estimates (and thus, Bayesian staircases are more efficient). The empirical test did not support these conclusions, as (1) neither procedure rendered estimates converging on some value, (2) standard deviations did not follow the expected pattern of decrease with number of trials, and (3) both procedures appeared to be equally efficient. Potential factors explaining the discrepancies between simulation and empirical results are commented upon and, all things considered, a sensible recommendation is for psychophysicists to run no fewer than 18 and no more than 30 reversals of an FSS staircase implementing the 1-up/3-down rule.