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

The influence of spatial frequency information on temporal synchrony perception on audiovisual stimuli

Previous studies have shown that the spatial frequency (SF) of visual stimuli alters the perceived timing of subjective simultaneity. However, these studies have been limited to the effects of a single SF component. In this study, I measured and compared the points of subjective simultaneity (PSS) for audiovisual stimuli among low, high, and composited SF components. This experiment comprised a dual-presentation timing task and a ternary response format to eliminate response bias. The results indicated that the PSS value of the composition-SF stimuli was more toward visual-lead timing than the low-SF stimuli and did not differ significantly from that of the high-SF stimuli. The correlation coefficients showed that the PSS in composition-SF stimuli marginally approximated that of high-SF stimuli higher than that of low-SF stimuli. Future studies are needed to confirm these findings using visual stimuli with a wider range of SF components and with a modulated contrast.

Mood and implicit confidence independently fluctuate at different time scales

Mood is an important ingredient of decision-making. Human beings are immersed into a sea of ​​emotions where episodes of high mood alternate with episodes of low mood. While changes in mood are well characterized, little is known about how these fluctuations interact with metacognition, and in particular with confidence about our decisions. We evaluated how implicit measurements of confidence are related with mood states of human participants through two online longitudinal experiments involving mood self-reports and visual discrimination decision-making tasks. Implicit confidence was assessed on each session by monitoring the proportion of opt-out trials when an opt-out option was available, as well as the median reaction time on standard correct trials as a secondary proxy of confidence. We first report a strong coupling between mood, stress, food enjoyment, and quality of sleep reported by participants in the same session. Second, we confirmed that the proportion of opt-out responses as well as reaction times in non-opt-out trials provided reliable indices of confidence in each session. We introduce a normative measure of overconfidence based on the pattern of opt-out selection and the signal-detection-theory framework. Finally and crucially, we found that mood, sleep quality, food enjoyment, and stress level are not consistently coupled with these implicit confidence markers, but rather they fluctuate at different time scales: mood-related states display faster fluctuations (over one day or half-a-day) than confidence level (two-and-a-half days). Therefore, our findings suggest that spontaneous fluctuations of mood and confidence in decision making are independent in the healthy adult population.

Order effects in two-alternative forced-choice tasks invalidate adaptive threshold estimates

Adaptive psychophysical methods are widely used for the quick estimation of percentage points (thresholds) on psychometric functions for two-alternative forced-choice (2AFC) tasks. The use of adaptive methods is supported by numerous simulation studies documenting their performance, which have shown that thresholds can be reasonably estimated with them when their founding assumptions hold. One of these assumptions is that the psychometric function is invariant, but empirical evidence is mounting that human performance in 2AFC tasks needs to be described by two different psychometric functions, one that holds when the test stimulus is presented first in the 2AFC trial and a different one that holds when the test is presented second. The same holds when presentations are instead simultaneous at two spatial locations rather than sequential. We re-evaluated the performance of adaptive methods in the presence of these order effects via simulation studies and an empirical study with human observers. The simulation study showed that thresholds are severely overestimated by adaptive methods in these conditions, and the empirical study corroborated these findings. These results question the validity of threshold estimates obtained with adaptive methods that incorrectly assume the psychometric function to be invariant with presentation order. Alternative ways in which thresholds can be accurately estimated in the presence of order effects are discussed.

Sensation weighting in duration discrimination: A univariate, multivariate, and varied-design study of presentation-order effects

Stimulus discriminability is often assessed by comparisons of two successive stimuli: a fixed standard (St) and a varied comparison stimulus (Co). Hellström's sensation weighting (SW) model describes the subjective difference between St and Co as a difference between two weighted compounds, each comprising a stimulus and its internal reference level (ReL). The presentation order of St and Co has two important effects: Relative overestimation of one stimulus is caused by perceptual time-order errors (TOEs), as well as by judgment biases. Also, sensitivity to changes in Co tends to differ between orders StCo and CoSt: the Type B effect. In three duration discrimination experiments, difference limens (DLs) were estimated by an adaptive staircase method. The SW model was adapted for modeling of DLs generated with this method. In Experiments 1 and 2, St durations were 100, 215, 464, and 1,000 ms in separate blocks. TOEs and Type B effects were assessed with univariate and multivariate analyses, and were well accounted for by the SW model, suggesting that the two effects are closely related, as this model predicts. With short St durations, lower DLs were found with the order CoSt than with StCo, challenging alternative models. In Experiment 3, St durations of 100 and 215 ms, or 464 and 1,000 ms, were intermixed within a block. From the SW model this was predicted to shift the ReL for the first-presented interval, thereby also shifting the TOE. This prediction was confirmed, strengthening the SW model's account of the comparison of stimulus magnitudes.

The Do's and Don'ts of Psychophysical Methods for Interpretability of Psychometric Functions and Their Descriptors

Many areas of research require measuring psychometric functions or their descriptors (thresholds, slopes, etc.). Data for this purpose are collected with psychophysical methods of various types and justification for the interpretation of results arises from a model of performance grounded in signal detection theory. Decades of research have shown that psychophysical data display features that are incompatible with such framework, questioning the validity of interpretations obtained under it and revealing that psychophysical performance is more complex than this framework entertains. This paper describes the assumptions and formulation of the conventional framework for the two major classes of psychophysical methods (single- and dual-presentation methods) and presents various lines of empirical evidence that the framework is inconsistent with. An alternative framework is then described and shown to account for all the characteristics that the conventional framework regards as anomalies. This alternative process model explicitly separates the sensory, decisional, and response components of performance and represents them via parameters whose estimation characterizes the corresponding processes. Retrospective and prospective evidence of the validity of the alternative framework is also presented. A formal analysis also reveals that some psychophysical methods and response formats are unsuitable for separation of the three components of observed performance. Recommendations are thus given regarding practices that should be avoided and those that should be followed to ensure interpretability of the psychometric function, or descriptors (detection threshold, difference limen, point of subjective equality, etc.) obtained with shortcut methods that do not require estimation of psychometric functions.

Bayesian Estimation with Informative Priors is Indistinguishable from Data Falsification

Criticism of null hypothesis significance testing, confidence intervals, and frequentist statistics in general has evolved into advocacy of Bayesian analyses with informative priors for strong inference. This paper shows that Bayesian analysis with informative priors is formally equivalent to data falsification because the information carried by the prior can be expressed as the addition of fabricated observations whose statistical characteristics are determined by the parameters of the prior. This property of informative priors makes clear that only the use of non-informative, uniform priors in all types of Bayesian analyses is compatible with standards of research integrity. At the same time, though, Bayesian estimation with uniform priors yields point and interval estimates that are identical or nearly identical to those obtained with frequentist methods. At a qualitative level, frequentist and Bayesian outcomes have different interpretations but they are interchangeable when uniform priors are used. Yet, Bayesian interpretations require either the assumption that population parameters are random variables (which they are not) or an explicit acknowledgment that the posterior distribution (which is thus identical to the likelihood function except for a scale factor) only expresses the researcher's beliefs and not any information about the parameter of concern.

Nonparametric tests for equality of psychometric functions

Many empirical studies measure psychometric functions (curves describing how observers' performance varies with stimulus magnitude) because these functions capture the effects of experimental conditions. To assess these effects, parametric curves are often fitted to the data and comparisons are carried out by testing for equality of mean parameter estimates across conditions. This approach is parametric and, thus, vulnerable to violations of the implied assumptions. Furthermore, testing for equality of means of parameters may be misleading: Psychometric functions may vary meaningfully across conditions on an observer-by-observer basis with no effect on the mean values of the estimated parameters. Alternative approaches to assess equality of psychometric functions per se are thus needed. This paper compares three nonparametric tests that are applicable in all situations of interest: The existing generalized Mantel-Haenszel test, a generalization of the Berry-Mielke test that was developed here, and a split variant of the generalized Mantel-Haenszel test also developed here. Their statistical properties (accuracy and power) are studied via simulation and the results show that all tests are indistinguishable as to accuracy but they differ non-uniformly as to power. Empirical use of the tests is illustrated via analyses of published data sets and practical recommendations are given. The computer code in MATLAB and R to conduct these tests is available as Electronic Supplemental Material.

Psychophysical Tests Do Not Identify Ocular Dominance Consistently

Classical sighting or sensory tests are used in clinical practice to identify the dominant eye. Several psychophysical tests were recently proposed to quantify the magnitude of dominance but whether their results agree was never investigated. We addressed this question for the two most common psychophysical tests: The perceived-phase test, which measures the cyclopean appearance of dichoptically presented sinusoids of different phase, and the coherence-threshold test, which measures interocular differences in motion perception when signal and noise stimuli are presented dichoptically. We also checked for agreement with three classical tests (Worth 4-dot, Randot suppression, and Bagolini lenses). Psychophysical tests were administered in their conventional form and also using more dependable psychophysical methods. The results showed weak correlations between psychophysical measures of strength of dominance with inconsistent identification of the dominant eye across tests: Agreement on left-eye dominance, right-eye dominance, or nondominance by both tests occurred only for 11 of 40 observers (27.5%); the remaining 29 observers were classified differently by each test, including 14 cases (35%) of opposite classification (left-eye dominance by one test and right-eye dominance by the other). Classical tests also yielded conflicting results that did not agree well with classification based on psychophysical tests. The results are discussed in the context of determination of ocular dominance for clinical decisions.