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.

The role of parametric assumptions in adaptive Bayesian estimation.

Variants of adaptive Bayesian procedures for estimating the 5% point on a psychometric function were studied by simulation. Bias and standard error were the criteria to evaluate performance. The results indicated a superiority of (a) uniform priors, (b) model likelihood functions that are odd symmetric about threshold and that have parameter values larger than their counterparts in the psychometric function, (c) stimulus placement at the prior mean, and (d) estimates defined as the posterior mean. Unbiasedness arises in only 10 trials, and 20 trials ensure constant standard errors. The standard error of the estimates equals 0.617 times the inverse of the square root of the number of trials. Other variants yielded bias and larger standard errors.

Stopping rules in Bayesian adaptive threshold estimation

Threshold estimation with sequential procedures is justifiable on the surmise that the index used in the so-called dynamic stopping rule has diagnostic value for identifying when an accurate estimate has been obtained. The performance of five types of Bayesian sequential procedure was compared here to that of an analogous fixed-length procedure. Indices for use in sequential procedures were: (1) the width of the Bayesian probability interval, (2) the posterior standard deviation, (3) the absolute change, (4) the average change, and (5) the number of sign fluctuations. A simulation study was carried out to evaluate which index renders estimates with less bias and smaller standard error at lower cost (i.e. lower average number of trials to completion), in both yes–no and two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) tasks. We also considered the effect of the form and parameters of the psychometric function and its similarity with themodel function assumed in the procedure. Our results show that sequential procedures do not outperform fixed-length procedures in yes–no tasks. However, in 2AFC tasks, sequential procedures not based on sign fluctuations all yield minimally better estimates than fixed-length procedures, although most of the improvement occurs with short runs that render undependable estimates and the differences vanish when the procedures run for a number of trials (around 70) that ensures dependability. Thus, none of the indices considered here (some of which are widespread) has the diagnostic value that would justify its use. In addition, difficulties of implementation make sequential procedures unfit as alternatives to fixed-length procedures.

Single Events in a COTS Soft-Error Free SRAM at Low Bias Voltage Induced by 15-MeV Neutrons

This paper presents an experimental study of the sensitivity to 15-MeV neutrons of Advanced Low Power SRAMs (A-LPSRAM) at low bias voltage little above the threshold value that allows the retention of data. This family of memories is characterized by a 3D structure to minimize the area penalty and to cope with latchups, as well as by the presence of integrated capacitors to hinder the occurrence of single event upsets. In low voltage static tests, classical single event upsets were a minor source of errors, but other unexpected phenomena such as clusters of bitflips and hard errors turned out to be the origin of hundreds of bitflips. Besides, errors were not observed in dynamic tests at nominal voltage. This behavior is clearly different than that of standard bulk CMOS SRAMs, where thousands of errors have been reported.

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.