Contrast discrimination by the methods of adjustment and two-alternative forced choice

Fifty years after the advent of signal-detection theory, some visual scientists still adhere to the notion of a high, fixed threshold. Indeed, experienced observers are able to deliver consistent settings of thresholds using the method of adjustment, but those settings are different from the thresholds obtained with two-alternative forced choice (2AFC) procedures. This article illustrates the difference by reference to four existing studies of contrast discrimination. All four sets of data show clear subthreshold facilitation, but the method of adjustment produces a rectilinear characteristic that corresponds to the use of different criteria over different ranges of contrast, whereas 2AFC procedures produce a curvilinear characteristic with generally lower thresholds. This article proposes a theoretical explanation for the difference.

[1]  Darren E. Koenig,et al.  The absolute threshold of cone vision. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[2]  D. Laming.  Probability summation--a critique. , 2013, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[3]  J. J. Kulikowski,et al.  The detection and recognition of two lines , 1981, Vision Research.

[4]  Threshold Nonlinearities and Signal Detection Theory , 2005, Perception.

[5]  J. Cronly-Dillon,et al.  Vision and visual dysfunction. , 1994, Journal of cognitive neuroscience.

[6]  J. Robson,et al.  Spatial-frequency channels in human vision. , 1971, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[7]  J Nachmias,et al.  Letter: Grating contrast: discrimination may be better than detection. , 1974, Vision research.

[8]  J. Solomon.  Intrinsic uncertainty explains second responses. , 2007, Spatial vision.

[9]  J SWETS,et al.  Decision processes in perception. , 1961, Psychological review.

[10]  J. Kulikowski,et al.  Effective contrast constancy and linearity of contrast sensation , 1976, Vision Research.

[11]  E. Boring.  A History of Experimental Psychology. , 1930 .

[12]  F. Campbell,et al.  Orientational selectivity of the human visual system , 1966, The Journal of physiology.

[13]  J. Robson,et al.  Application of fourier analysis to the visibility of gratings , 1968, The Journal of physiology.

[14]  D. Laming.  Fechner's law: where does the log transform come from? , 2010, Seeing and Perceiving.

[15]  N. Graham.  Visual Pattern Analyzers , 1989 .

[16]  J. M. Foley,et al.  Contrast masking in human vision. , 1980, Journal of the Optical Society of America.

[17]  C Blakemore,et al.  On the existence of neurones in the human visual system selectively sensitive to the orientation and size of retinal images , 1969, The Journal of physiology.

[18]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[19]  G. B. Wetherill,et al.  SEQUENTIAL ESTIMATION OF POINTS ON A PSYCHOMETRIC FUNCTION. , 1965, The British journal of mathematical and statistical psychology.

[20]  E. Boring.  A history of experimental psychology, 2nd ed. , 1950 .

[21]  G. Legge.  A power law for contrast discrimination , 1981, Vision Research.