Literature DB >> 17209737

Spatial four-alternative forced-choice method is the preferred psychophysical method for naïve observers.

Frank Jäkel1, Felix A Wichmann.   

Abstract

H. R. Blackwell (1952) investigated the influence of different psychophysical methods and procedures on detection thresholds. He found that the temporal two-interval forced-choice method (2-IFC) combined with feedback, blocked constant stimulus presentation with few different stimulus intensities, and highly trained observers resulted in the "best" threshold estimates. This recommendation is in current practice in many psychophysical laboratories and has entered the psychophysicists' "folk wisdom" of how to run proper psychophysical experiments. However, Blackwell's recommendations explicitly require experienced observers, whereas many psychophysical studies, particularly with children or within a clinical setting, are performed with naïve observers. In a series of psychophysical experiments, we find a striking and consistent discrepancy between naïve observers' behavior and that reported for experienced observers by Blackwell: Naïve observers show the "best" threshold estimates for the spatial four-alternative forced-choice method (4-AFC) and the worst for the commonly employed temporal 2-IFC. We repeated our study with a highly experienced psychophysical observer, and he replicated Blackwell's findings exactly, thus suggesting that it is indeed the difference in psychophysical experience that causes the discrepancy between our findings and those of Blackwell. In addition, we explore the efficiency of different methods and show 4-AFC to be more than 3.5 times more efficient than 2-IFC under realistic conditions. While we have found that 4-AFC consistently gives lower thresholds than 2-IFC in detection tasks, we have found the opposite for discrimination tasks. This discrepancy suggests that there are large extrasensory influences on thresholds--sensory memory for IFC methods and spatial attention for spatial forced-choice methods--that are critical but, alas, not part of theoretical approaches to psychophysics such as signal detection theory.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2006        PMID: 17209737     DOI: 10.1167/6.11.13

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Vis        ISSN: 1534-7362            Impact factor:   2.240


  33 in total

1.  Fearful expressions gain preferential access to awareness during continuous flash suppression.

Authors:  Eunice Yang; David H Zald; Randolph Blake
Journal:  Emotion       Date:  2007-11

2.  Bias and sensitivity in two-interval forced choice procedures: Tests of the difference model.

Authors:  Yaffa Yeshurun; Marisa Carrasco; Laurence T Maloney
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2008-06-27       Impact factor: 1.886

3.  Using 10AFC to further improve the efficiency of the quick CSF method.

Authors:  Fang Hou; Luis Lesmes; Peter Bex; Michael Dorr; Zhong-Lin Lu
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2015       Impact factor: 2.240

4.  TuebingenCSTest - a useful method to assess the contrast sensitivity function.

Authors:  Tim Schilling; Arne Ohlendorf; Alexander Leube; Siegfried Wahl
Journal:  Biomed Opt Express       Date:  2017-02-10       Impact factor: 3.732

5.  A bias-free measure of retinotopic tilt adaptation.

Authors:  M J Morgan
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 2.240

Review 6.  Signal detection theory and vestibular thresholds: I. Basic theory and practical considerations.

Authors:  Daniel M Merfeld
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2011-02-26       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Signal detection theory and vestibular perception: III. Estimating unbiased fit parameters for psychometric functions.

Authors:  Shomesh E Chaudhuri; Daniel M Merfeld
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2012-12-19       Impact factor: 1.972

8.  Visual integration dysfunction in schizophrenia arises by the first psychotic episode and worsens with illness duration.

Authors:  Brian P Keane; Danielle Paterno; Sabine Kastner; Steven M Silverstein
Journal:  J Abnorm Psychol       Date:  2016-03-31

9.  Measuring contrast sensitivity.

Authors:  Denis G Pelli; Peter Bex
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2013-05-03       Impact factor: 1.886

10.  Comparing Spatial Contrast Sensitivity Functions Measured With Digit and Grating Stimuli.

Authors:  Haiyan Zheng; Menglu Shen; Xianghang He; Rong Cui; Luis Andres Lesmes; Zhong-Lin Lu; Fang Hou
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2019-11-15       Impact factor: 3.283

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.