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.

On the discrepant results in synchrony judgment and temporal-order judgment tasks: a quantitative model.

Research on the perception of temporal order uses either temporal-order judgment (TOJ) tasks or synchrony judgment (SJ) tasks, in both of which two stimuli are presented with some temporal delay and observers must judge the order of presentation. Results generally differ across tasks, raising concerns about whether they measure the same processes. We present a model including sensory and decisional parameters that places these tasks in a common framework that allows studying their implications on observed performance. TOJ tasks imply specific decisional components that explain the discrepancy of results obtained with TOJ and SJ tasks. The model is also tested against published data on audiovisual temporal-order judgments, and the fit is satisfactory, although model parameters are more accurately estimated with SJ tasks. Measures of latent point of subjective simultaneity and latent sensitivity are defined that are invariant across tasks by isolating the sensory parameters governing observed performance, whereas decisional parameters vary across tasks and account for observed differences across them. Our analyses concur with other evidence advising against the use of TOJ tasks in research on perception of temporal order.

Improving the estimation of psychometric functions in 2AFC discrimination tasks.

Ulrich and Vorberg (2009) presented a method that fits distinct functions for each order of presentation of standard and test stimuli in a two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) discrimination task, which removes the contaminating influence of order effects from estimates of the difference limen. The two functions are fitted simultaneously under the constraint that their average evaluates to 0.5 when test and standard have the same magnitude, which was regarded as a general property of 2AFC tasks. This constraint implies that physical identity produces indistinguishability, which is valid when test and standard are identical except for magnitude along the dimension of comparison. However, indistinguishability does not occur at physical identity when test and standard differ on dimensions other than that along which they are compared (e.g., vertical and horizontal lines of the same length are not perceived to have the same length). In these cases, the method of Ulrich and Vorberg cannot be used. We propose a generalization of their method for use in such cases and illustrate it with data from a 2AFC experiment involving length discrimination of horizontal and vertical lines. The resultant data could be fitted with our generalization but not with the method of Ulrich and Vorberg. Further extensions of this method are discussed.

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.

Correction to “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)”

We recently published an article (García-Pérez & Alcalá- Quintana, 2010) reanalyzing data presented by Lapid, Ulrich, and Rammsayer (2008) and discussing a theoretical argument developed by Ulrich and Vorberg (2009). The purpose of this note is to correct an error in our study that has some theoretical importance, although it does not affect the conclusion that was raised. The error lies in that asymptote parameters reflecting lapses or finger errors should not enter the constraint relating the psychometric functions that describe performance when the comparison stimulus in a two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) discrimination task is presented in the first or second interval.