Abstract
Because adaptive tracking procedures are designed to avoid stimulus levels far from a target threshold value, the psychometric function constructed from the trial-by-trial data in the track may be accurate near the target level but a poor reflection of performance at levels far removed from the target. A series of computer simulations was undertaken to assess the reliability and accuracy of psychometric functions generated from data collected in up-down adaptive tracking procedures. Estimates of psychometric function slopes were obtained from-trial-by-trial data in simulated adaptive tracks and compared with the true characteristics of the functions used to generate the tracks. Simulations were carried out for three psychophysical procedures and two target performance levels, with tracks generated by psychometric functions with three different slopes. The functions reconstructed from the tracking data were, for the most part, accurate reflections of the true generating functions when at least 200 trials were included in the tracks. However, for 50- and 100-trial tracks, slope estimates were biased high for all simulated experimental conditions. Correction factors for slope estimates from these tracks are presented. There was no difference in the accuracy and reliability of slope estimation due to -target-level-for the adaptive track, and only minor differences due to psychophysical procedure. It is recommended that, if both threshold and slope of psychometric functions are to be estimated-from the trial-by-trial tracking data, at least 100 trials should be included in the tracks, and a three- or four-alternative forced-choice procedure should be used. However, good estimates can also be obtained using the two-alternative forced-choice procedure or less than 100 trials if appropriate corrections for bias are applied.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Arehart, K. H., Burns, E. M., &Schlauch, R. S. (1990). A comparison of psychometric functions for detection in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners.Journal of Speech & Hearing Research,33, 433–439.
Egan, J. P., Lindner, W. A., &McFadden, D. (1969). Masking-level differences and the form of the psychometric function.Perception & Psychophysics,6, 209–215.
Elliott, P. B. (1964). Tables ofd′. In J. A. Swets (Ed.),Signal detection and recognition by human observers (pp. 651–684). New York: Wiley.
Finney, D. J. (1971).Probit analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Green, D. M. (1990). Stimulus selection in adaptive psychophysical procedures.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,87, 2662–2674.
Green, D. M., &Dai, H. (1991). Probability of being correct with 1 ofM orthogonal signals.Perception & Psychophysics,49, 100–101.
Hall, J. L. (1981). Hybrid adaptive procedure for estimation of psychometric functions.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,69, 1763–1769.
Hall, J. L. (1983). A procedure for detecting variability of psychophysical thresholds.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,73, 663–667.
Johnson, D. M., Watson, C. S., &Kelly, W. J. (1984). Performance differences among the intervals in forced-choice tasks.Perception & Psychophysics,35, 553–557.
Kershaw, C. D. (1985). Statistical properties of staircase estimates from two interval forced choice experiments.British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology,38, 35–43.
Kollmeier, B., Gilkey, R. H., &Sieben, U. K. (1988). Adaptive staircase techniques in psychoacoustics: A comparison of human data and a mathematical model.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,83, 1852–1862.
Leek, M. R., Hanna, T. E., &Marshall, L. (1988).Psychometric function reconstruction from adaptive tracking procedures (Report No. 1095). Groton, CT: Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory.
Levitt, H. (1971). Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,49, 467–477.
McKee, S. P., Klein, S. A., &Teller, D. A. (1985). Statistical properties of forced-choice psychometric functions: Implications of probit analysis.Perception & Psychophysics,37, 286–298.
O’Regan, J. K., &Humbert, R. (1989). Estimating psychometric functions in forced-choice situations: Significant biases found in threshold and slope estimations when small samples are used.Perception & Psychophysics,46, 434–442.
Rose, R. M., Teller, D. Y., &Rendleman, P. (1970). Statistical properties of staircase estimates.Perception & Psychophysics.8, 199–204.
Schlauch, R. S., &Rose, R. M. (1990). Two-, three-, and four-interval forced-choice staircase procedures: Estimator bias and efficiency.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,88, 732–740.
Shelton, B. R., Picardi, M. C. &Green, D. M. (1982). Comparison of three adaptive psychophysical procedures.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,71, 1527–1533.
Shelton, B. R., &Scarrow, I. (1984). Two-alternative versus three alternative procedures for threshold estimation.Perception & Psychophysics,35, 385–392,
Taylor, M. M., &Creelman, C. D. (1967). PEST: Efficient estimates on probability functions.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,41, 782–787.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This work was supported by the American Society for Engineering Education and Naval Medical Research and Development Command, Navy Department, Research Work Unit No. 65856N-M0100.001-1021. It was undertaken while the first author was an American Society for Engineering Education Summer Faculty Fellow at the Naval Submarine Medical Research Laboratory, Groton, CT. The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Navy, Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U. S. Government.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Leek, M.R., Hanna, T.E. & Marshall, L. Estimation of psychometric functions from adaptive tracking procedures. Perception & Psychophysics 51, 247–256 (1992). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212251
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212251