Literature DB >> 18585750

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

Yaffa Yeshurun1, Marisa Carrasco, Laurence T Maloney.   

Abstract

We assess four common claims concerning the two-interval forced choice (2-IFC) procedure and the standard Difference Model of 2-IFC performance. The first two are (1) that it is unbiased and (2) that the structure of the 2-IFC task does not in itself alter sensitivity. The remaining two concern a claimed 2 enhancement in sensitivity in 2-IFC relative to that measured in a Yes-No task. We review relevant past research and re-analyze seventeen experiments from previous studies across three laboratories. We then report an experiment comparing 2-IFC performance with performance in a second task designed to elucidate observers' decision processes. This second task is simply two successive Yes-No signal detection tasks with the same timing as in the 2-IFC experiment. We find little evidence supporting the claims that 2-IFC is unbiased and that it does not alter sensitivity and we also reject the two claims associated with the Difference Model as a model of performance in our own experiment.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18585750      PMCID: PMC5839130          DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2008.05.008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.886


  17 in total

1.  Measuring, estimating, and understanding the psychometric function: a commentary.

Authors:  S A Klein
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2001-11

2.  On the analysis of psychometric functions: the Spearman-Kärber method.

Authors:  J Miller; R Ulrich
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2001-11

3.  The role of virtual standards in visual discrimination.

Authors:  Jacob Nachmias
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2006-03-10       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  A single-interval adjustment-matrix (SIAM) procedure for unbiased adaptive testing.

Authors:  C Kaernbach
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1990-12       Impact factor: 1.840

5.  The contribution of covert attention to the set-size and eccentricity effects in visual search.

Authors:  M Carrasco; Y Yeshurun
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1998-04       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Intensity perception. IV. Resolution in roving-level discrimination.

Authors:  J E Berliner; N I Durlach
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1973-05       Impact factor: 1.840

7.  Intensity and frequency discrimination in one- and two-interval paradigms.

Authors:  W Jesteadt; R C Bilger
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1974-06       Impact factor: 1.840

8.  Auditory phase and frequency discrimination: a comparison of nine procedures.

Authors:  C D Creelman; N A Macmillan
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1979-02       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Discrimination of orientation-defined texture edges.

Authors:  S S Wolfson; M S Landy
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1995-10       Impact factor: 1.886

10.  Operating characteristics from yes-no and forced-choice procedures.

Authors:  A I Schulman; R R Mitchell
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  1966-08       Impact factor: 1.840

View more
  36 in total

1.  The empirical characteristics of human pattern vision defy theoretically-driven expectations.

Authors:  Peter Neri
Journal:  PLoS Comput Biol       Date:  2018-12-04       Impact factor: 4.475

2.  Naturally glossy: Gloss perception, illumination statistics, and tone mapping.

Authors:  Wendy J Adams; Gizem Kucukoglu; Michael S Landy; Rafal K Mantiuk
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2018-12-03       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  From comparison to classification: a cortical tool for boosting perception.

Authors:  Mor Nahum; Luba Daikhin; Yedida Lubin; Yamit Cohen; Merav Ahissar
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2010-01-20       Impact factor: 6.167

4.  Deconstructing multisensory enhancement in detection.

Authors:  Mario Pannunzi; Alexis Pérez-Bellido; Alexandre Pereda-Baños; Joan López-Moliner; Gustavo Deco; Salvador Soto-Faraco
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2014-12-17       Impact factor: 2.714

5.  Classification images reveal decision variables and strategies in forced choice tasks.

Authors:  Lisa M Pritchett; Richard F Murray
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-05-26       Impact factor: 11.205

6.  Binocular combination of phase and contrast explained by a gain-control and gain-enhancement model.

Authors:  Jian Ding; Stanley A Klein; Dennis M Levi
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-02-08       Impact factor: 2.240

7.  Distinguishing bias from sensitivity effects in multialternative detection tasks.

Authors:  Devarajan Sridharan; Nicholas A Steinmetz; Tirin Moore; Eric I Knudsen
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-08-21       Impact factor: 2.240

8.  Yes/no and two-interval forced-choice tasks with listener-based vs observer-based responses.

Authors:  Lori J Leibold; Emily Buss
Journal:  J Acoust Soc Am       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 1.840

9.  On the number of perceivable blur levels in naturalistic images.

Authors:  Christopher Patrick Taylor; Peter J Bex
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2015-03-02       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 10.  How mechanisms of perceptual decision-making affect the psychometric function.

Authors:  Joshua I Gold; Long Ding
Journal:  Prog Neurobiol       Date:  2012-05-17       Impact factor: 11.685

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.