Literature DB >> 24811039

The bisection point across variants of the task.

Miguel A García-Pérez1, Eli Peli.   

Abstract

Bisection tasks are used in research on normal space and time perception and to assess the perceptual distortions accompanying neurological disorders. Several variants of the bisection task are used, which often yield inconsistent results, prompting the question of which variant is most dependable and which results are to be trusted. We addressed this question using theoretical and experimental approaches. Theoretical performance in bisection tasks is derived from a general model of psychophysical performance that includes sensory components and decisional processes. The model predicts how performance should differ across variants of the task, even when the sensory component is fixed. To test these predictions, data were collected in a within-subjects study with several variants of a spatial bisection task, including a two-response variant in which observers indicated whether a line was transected to the right or left of the midpoint, a three-response variant (which included the additional option to respond "midpoint"), and a paired-comparison variant of the three-response format. The data supported the model predictions, revealing that estimated bisection points were least dependable with the two-response variant, because this format confounds perceptual and decisional influences. Only the three-response paired-comparison format can separate out these influences. Implications for research in basic and clinical fields are discussed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24811039      PMCID: PMC4139453          DOI: 10.3758/s13414-014-0672-9

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 1943-3921            Impact factor:   2.199


  44 in total

1.  Components of visual prior entry.

Authors:  Keith A Schneider; Daphne Bavelier
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 3.468

2.  Perceptual and response bias in unilateral neglect: two modified versions of the milner landmark task.

Authors:  E Bisiach; R Ricci; M Lualdi; M R Colombo
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  1998-08       Impact factor: 2.310

3.  Interval bias in 2AFC detection tasks: sorting out the artifacts.

Authors:  Miguel A García-Pérez; Rocío Alcalá-Quintana
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 2.199

4.  When right goes left: an investigation of line bisection in a case of visual neglect.

Authors:  J C Marshall; P W Halligan
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 4.027

5.  A concordance correlation coefficient to evaluate reproducibility.

Authors:  L I Lin
Journal:  Biometrics       Date:  1989-03       Impact factor: 2.571

6.  Line bisection errors in visual neglect: misguided action or size distortion?

Authors:  A D Milner; M Harvey; R C Roberts; S V Forster
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  1993-01       Impact factor: 3.139

7.  Perceptual bias and response bias in temporal bisection.

Authors:  T G Raslear
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1985-09

8.  Comparison of the Milner and Bisiach Landmark Tasks: can neglect patients be classified consistently?

Authors:  Monika Harvey; Bettina Olk
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2004 Sep-Dec       Impact factor: 4.027

9.  Finding centre: ocular and fMRI investigations of bisection and landmark task performance.

Authors:  Céline Cavézian; Derick Valadao; Marc Hurwitz; Mohamed Saoud; James Danckert
Journal:  Brain Res       Date:  2011-12-08       Impact factor: 3.252

10.  A revised method for analysing neglect using the landmark task.

Authors:  Alessio Toraldo; Robert D McIntosh; H Chris Dijkerman; A David Milner
Journal:  Cortex       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 4.027

View more
  11 in total

1.  Thou Shalt Not Bear False Witness Against Null Hypothesis Significance Testing.

Authors:  Miguel A García-Pérez
Journal:  Educ Psychol Meas       Date:  2016-10-05       Impact factor: 2.821

2.  A quantitative confidence signal detection model: 1. Fitting psychometric functions.

Authors:  Yongwoo Yi; Daniel M Merfeld
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2016-01-13       Impact factor: 2.714

3.  When uncertain, does human self-motion decision-making fully utilize complete information?

Authors:  Torin K Clark; Yongwoo Yi; Raquel C Galvan-Garza; María Carolina Bermúdez Rey; Daniel M Merfeld
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2017-12-20       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Aniseikonia Tests: The Role of Viewing Mode, Response Bias, and Size-Color Illusions.

Authors:  Miguel A García-Pérez; Eli Peli
Journal:  Transl Vis Sci Technol       Date:  2015-06-11       Impact factor: 3.283

5.  Does time ever fly or slow down? The difficult interpretation of psychophysical data on time perception.

Authors:  Miguel A García-Pérez
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2014-06-10       Impact factor: 3.169

6.  Visual and Auditory Components in the Perception of Asynchronous Audiovisual Speech.

Authors:  Miguel A García-Pérez; Rocío Alcalá-Quintana
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2015-11-30

7.  The Indecision Model of Psychophysical Performance in Dual-Presentation Tasks: Parameter Estimation and Comparative Analysis of Response Formats.

Authors:  Miguel A García-Pérez; Rocío Alcalá-Quintana
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2017-07-12

8.  Decoupling sensory from decisional choice biases in perceptual decision making.

Authors:  Daniel Linares; David Aguilar-Lleyda; Joan López-Moliner
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2019-03-27       Impact factor: 8.140

9.  Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently.

Authors:  Miguel A García-Pérez; Eli Peli
Journal:  Iperception       Date:  2019-04-29

10.  A Roving Dual-Presentation Simultaneity-Judgment Task to Estimate the Point of Subjective Simultaneity.

Authors:  Kielan Yarrow; Sian E Martin; Steven Di Costa; Joshua A Solomon; Derek H Arnold
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2016-03-24
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.