Bias and sensitivity in two-interval forced choice procedures: Tests of the difference model
Bias and sensitivity in two-interval forced choice procedures: Tests of the difference model
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.visres.2008.05.008
复制
发表时间：
2008-08-01
期刊：
影响因子：
1.8
通讯作者：
Maloney, Laurence T.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Yeshurun, Yaffa;Carrasco, Marisa;Maloney, Laurence T.
我们评估了有关两区间强制选择 (2-IFC) 程序和 2-IFC 性能标准差异模型的四种常见主张。前两个是 (1) 它是无偏见的，(2) 2-IFC 任务的结构本身不会改变敏感性。其余两个涉及声称的 root 2 相对于“是-否”任务中测量的灵敏度而言，2-IFC 中的灵敏度增强。我们回顾了过去的相关研究，并重新分析了三个实验室先前研究的十七项实验。然后，我们报告了一项实验，将 2-IFC 性能与第二个任务中的性能进行比较，旨在阐明观察者的决策过程。第二个任务只是两个连续的是-否信号检测任务，其时序与 2-IFC 实验中的时序相同。我们发现几乎没有证据支持 2-IFC 是无偏且不会改变灵敏度的主张，并且我们也拒绝与差异模型相关的两个主张作为我们自己的实验中的性能模型。 (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. 保留所有权利。
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 root 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. (C) 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.