Enhancing simulations with intra-subject variability for improved psychophysical assessments

Psychometric properties of perceptual assessments, like reliability, depend on the stochastic properties of psychophysical sampling procedures resulting in method variability, as well as inter- and intra-subject variability. Method variability is commonly minimized by optimizing sampling procedures through computer simulations. Inter-subject variability is inherent in the population of interest and cannot be acted upon. In contrast, intra-subject variability introduced by confounds cannot be simply quantified from experimental data, as this data also includes method variability. Therefore, this aspect is generally neglected when developing assessments. Yet, comparing method variability and intra-subject variability could give insights on whether effort should be invested in optimizing the sampling procedure, or in addressing potential confounds instead. We propose a new approach to estimate and model intra-subject variability of psychometric functions by combining computer simulations and behavioral data, and to account for it when simulating experiments. The approach was illustrated in a real-world scenario of proprioceptive difference threshold assessments. The behavioral study revealed a test-retest reliability of 0.212. Computer simulations lacking intra-subject variability predicted a reliability of 0.768, whereas the new approach including an intra-subject variability model lead to a realistic estimate of reliability (0.207). Such a model also allows computing the theoretically maximally attainable reliability (0.552) assuming an ideal sampling procedure. Comparing the reliability estimates when exclusively accounting for method variability versus intra-subject variability reveals that intra-subject variability should be reduced by addressing confounds and that only optimizing the sampling procedure may be insufficient to achieve a high reliability. The new approach also allows accelerating the development of assessments by simulating the converging behavior of the reliability confidence interval with a large number of subjects and retests without requiring additional experiments. Having such a tool of predictive value is especially important for target populations where time is scarce, such as for assessments in clinical settings.

[1]  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 .

[2]  Ingo Fründ,et al.  Inference for psychometric functions in the presence of nonstationary behavior. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[3]  Olivier Lambercy,et al.  ReFlex, a haptic wrist interface for motor learning and rehabilitation , 2010, 2010 IEEE Haptics Symposium.

[4]  Neil A. Macmillan,et al.  Detection Theory: A User's Guide , 1991 .

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

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

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

[8]  Olivier Lambercy,et al.  Method for Improving Psychophysical Threshold Estimates by Detecting Sustained Inattention , 2018, bioRxiv.

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

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

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

[12]  P. King-Smith,et al.  Efficient and unbiased modifications of the QUEST threshold method: Theory, simulations, experimental evaluation and practical implementation , 1994, Vision Research.

[13]  R. C. Oldfield The assessment and analysis of handedness: the Edinburgh inventory. , 1971, Neuropsychologia.

[14]  Jody L. Vogelzang,et al.  Health Measurement Scales: A Practical Guide to Their Development and Use , 2015 .

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

[16]  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.

[17]  Olivier Lambercy,et al.  Experimental Validation of a Rapid, Adaptive Robotic Assessment of the MCP Joint Angle Difference Threshold , 2014, EuroHaptics.

[18]  M. M. Taylor On the efficiency of psychophysical measurement. , 1971, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[19]  Olivier Lambercy,et al.  Age-based model for metacarpophalangeal joint proprioception in elderly , 2017, Clinical interventions in aging.

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

[21]  W A Simpson The step method: A new adaptive psychophysical procedure , 1989, Perception & psychophysics.

[22]  J. Maunsell,et al.  When Attention Wanders: How Uncontrolled Fluctuations in Attention Affect Performance , 2011, The Journal of Neuroscience.

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

[24]  C. Terwee,et al.  When to use agreement versus reliability measures. , 2006, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[25]  D. Downham,et al.  How to assess the reliability of measurements in rehabilitation. , 2005, American journal of physical medicine & rehabilitation.

[26]  A. Watson,et al.  The method of constant stimuli is inefficient , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[27]  J. Fleiss,et al.  Intraclass correlations: uses in assessing rater reliability. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.