Evaluation of maximum-likelihood threshold estimation with tone-in-noise masking

Abstract There has been much recent interest in the use of adaptive psychophysical procedures based on maximum-likelihood estimation (MLE) in order to minimize testing time. The speed and accuracy of MLE was compared to a standard transformed up-down algorithm in a two-interval forced-choice task. Thresholds for detecting a 2 kHz tone in either a broadband ora notched-noise were estimated in three normal-hearing listeners. The transformed up-down algorithm tracked 79% correct with either two, Four, six or eight final turnarounds, whereas the MLE procedure tracked 70%, 80% or 90% correct. MLE was always quickest, but with a penalty in increased variability. Use of the MLE procedure to track 70% or 80% correct also resulted in a tendency to overestimate listeners’ sensitivity. Reducing the number of turnarounds in the up-down procedure from eight to two reduced the number of trials required by nearly half and resulted in thresholds with similar magnitude and variability to those obtained using MLE to track 90% correct.

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

[2]  S Rosen,et al.  Auditory filter nonlinearity at 2 kHz in normal hearing listeners. , 1998, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

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

[4]  J. L. Hall Maximum‐Likelihood Sequential Procedure for Estimation of Psychometric Functions , 1968 .

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

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

[7]  R. Madigan,et al.  Maximum-likelihood psychometric procedures in two-alternative forced-choice: Evaluation and recommendations , 1987, Perception & psychophysics.

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

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

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

[11]  Richard J. Baker,et al.  Characterising auditory filter nonlinearity , 1994, Hearing Research.

[12]  D M Green,et al.  Further studies of a maximum-likelihood yes-no procedure. , 1994, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[13]  R. Patterson Auditory filter shapes derived with noise stimuli. , 1976, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.