Adaptive procedures in psychophysical research

As research on sensation and perception has grown more sophisticated during the last century, new adaptive methodologies have been developed to increase efficiency and reliability of measurement. An experimental procedure is said to be adaptive if the physical characteristics of the stimuli on each trial are determined by the stimuli and responses that occurred in the previous trial or sequence of trials. In this paper, the general development of adaptive procedures is described, and three commonly used methods are reviewed. Typically, a threshold value is measured using these methods, and, in some cases, other characteristics of the psychometric function underlying perceptual performance, such as slope, may be developed. Results of simulations and experiments with human subjects are reviewed to evaluate the utility of these adaptive procedures and the special circumstances under which one might be superior to another.

[1]  Gustav Theodor Fechner,et al.  Elemente der Psychophysik / vol. 1 , 1889 .

[2]  J. Gaddum Probit Analysis , 1948, Nature.

[3]  Alexander M. Mood,et al.  A Method for Obtaining and Analyzing Sensitivity Data , 1948 .

[4]  J. Jerger,et al.  Preferred Method For Clinical Determination Of Pure-Tone Thresholds , 1959 .

[5]  M. M. Taylor,et al.  PEST: Efficient Estimates on Probability Functions , 1967 .

[6]  H Levitt,et al.  Use of a sequential strategy in intelligibility testing. , 1967, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[7]  H. Levitt Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[8]  J. Lewis,et al.  Probit Analysis (3rd ed). , 1972 .

[9]  R. Carhart,et al.  Measurement of articulation functions using adaptive test procedures , 1973 .

[10]  W A Cooper,et al.  Combining auditory and visual stimuli in the adaptive testing of speech discrimination. , 1978, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[11]  John M. Findlay,et al.  Estimates on probability functions: A more virulent PEST , 1978 .

[12]  J. L. Hall Hybrid adaptive procedure for estimation of psychometric functions. , 1980 .

[13]  A Pentland,et al.  Maximum likelihood estimation: The best PEST , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  J. L. Hall A procedure for detecting variability of psychophysical thresholds , 1981 .

[15]  D. P. Andrews,et al.  APE: Adaptive probit estimation of psychometric functions , 1981 .

[16]  J. L. Hall Hybrid adaptive procedure for estimation of psychometric functions. , 1980, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[17]  Brian R. Shelton,et al.  Comparison of three adaptive psychophysical procedures , 1982 .

[18]  D D Dirks,et al.  A procedure for quantifying the effects of noise on speech recognition. , 1982, The Journal of speech and hearing disorders.

[19]  A. Watson,et al.  Quest: A Bayesian adaptive psychometric method , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[20]  C D Creelman,et al.  PEST reduces bias in forced choice psychophysics. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[21]  J. L. Hall,et al.  A procedure for detecting variability of psychophysical thresholds. , 1983, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[22]  M R Leek,et al.  Learning to detect auditory pattern components. , 1984, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[23]  B. R. Shelton,et al.  Two-alternative versus three-alternative procedures for threshold estimation , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

[24]  S. McKee,et al.  Statistical properties of forced-choice psychometric functions: Implications of probit analysis , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[25]  B Kollmeier,et al.  Adaptive staircase techniques in psychoacoustics: a comparison of human data and a mathematical model. , 1988, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[26]  J. Stillman,et al.  A comparison of three adaptive psychophysical procedures using inexperienced listeners , 1989, Perception & psychophysics.

[27]  R. Schlauch,et al.  Two-, three-, and four-interval forced-choice staircase procedures: estimator bias and efficiency. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[28]  D. M. Green,et al.  Stimulus selection in adaptive psychophysical procedures. , 1990, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[29]  M R Leek,et al.  An interleaved tracking procedure to monitor unstable psychometric functions. , 1991, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[30]  C Kaernbach,et al.  Simple adaptive testing with the weighted up-down method , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[31]  T E Hanna,et al.  Estimation of psychometric functions from adaptive tracking procedures , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[32]  Thomas Rammsayer,et al.  An experimental comparison of the weighted up-down method and the transformed up-down method , 1992 .

[33]  H Levitt,et al.  Adaptive procedures for hearing aid prescription and other audiologic applications. , 1992, Journal of the American Academy of Audiology.

[34]  Auditory intensity perception: successive versus simultaneous, across-channel discriminations. , 1992, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[35]  D. M. Green,et al.  A maximum-likelihood method for estimating thresholds in a yes-no task. , 1993, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[36]  B. Treutwein Adaptive psychophysical procedures , 1995, Vision Research.

[37]  P. King-Smith,et al.  Principles of an Adaptive Method for Measuring the Slope of the Psychometric Function , 1997, Vision Research.

[38]  D M Green,et al.  Evaluation of maximum-likelihood estimators in nonintensive auditory psychophysics , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[39]  G. Fechner Elemente der Psychophysik , 1998 .

[40]  J R Dubno,et al.  Frequency and intensity discrimination measured in a maximum-likelihood procedure from young and aged normal-hearing subjects. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[41]  C. Tyler,et al.  Bayesian adaptive estimation of psychometric slope and threshold , 1999, Vision Research.

[42]  Efficient across-frequency integration: evidence from psychometric functions. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[43]  M R Leek,et al.  Experience with a yes-no single-interval maximum-likelihood procedure. , 2000, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[44]  Jeff Miller,et al.  On the analysis of psychometric functions: The Spearman-Kärber method , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[45]  C Kaernbach,et al.  Slope bias of psychometric functions derived from adaptive data , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[46]  Felix Wichmann,et al.  The psychometric function: II. Bootstrap-based confidence intervals and sampling , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[47]  H Strasburger,et al.  Converting between measures of slope of the psychometric function , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[48]  H Strasburger,et al.  Invariance of the psychometric function for character recognition across the visual field , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[49]  F A Wichmann,et al.  Ning for Helpful Comments and Suggestions. This Paper Benefited Con- Siderably from Conscientious Peer Review, and We Thank Our Reviewers the Psychometric Function: I. Fitting, Sampling, and Goodness of Fit , 2001 .

[50]  C. Kaernbach Adaptive threshold estimation with unforced-choice tasks , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[51]  L O Harvey,et al.  Fast and accurate measurement of taste and smell thresholds using a maximum-likelihood adaptive staircase procedure , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[52]  G. Békésy,et al.  Adaptive threshold estimation with unforced-choice tasks , 2002 .