Utility of a dynamic termination criterion in the ZEST adaptive threshold method

Vision Research

Volumn 43, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 165-170

  Anderson, Andrew J ^a  

^a DEVERS EYE INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

Efficiency; Psychometric function; Threshold methods

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; DYNAMICS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PSYCHOMETRY; VISION TEST; VISUAL ADAPTATION;

ADAPTATION, PHYSIOLOGICAL; BAYES THEOREM; CONTRAST SENSITIVITY; HUMANS; MONTE CARLO METHOD; PSYCHOMETRICS; PSYCHOPHYSICS; SENSORY THRESHOLDS; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 0037231963     PISSN: 00426989     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0042-6989(02)00396-6     Document Type: Article

References (18)

1. Anderson A.J., Vingrys A.J. Interactions between flicker thresholds and luminance pedestals. Vision Research. 40:2000;2579-2588.
2. Harvey L.O. Jr. Efficient estimation of sensory thresholds. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers. 18:1986;623-632.
3. Johnson C.A., Nelson-Quigg J.M. A prospective three-year study of response properties of normal subjects and patients during automated perimetry. Ophthalmology. 100:1993;269-274.
4. King-Smith P.E., Grigsby S.S., Vingrys A.J., Benes S.C., Supowit A. Efficient and unbiased modifications of the QUEST threshold method: theory, simulations, experimental evaluation and practical implementation. Vision Research. 34:1994;885-912.
5. Kontsevich L.L., Tyler C.W. Bayesian adaptive estimation of psychometric slope and threshold. Vision Research. 39:1999;2729-2737.
6. Laming D., Marsh D. Some performance tests of QUEST on measurements of vibrotactile thresholds. Perception and Psychophysics. 44:1988;99-107.
7. Madigan R., Williams D. Maximum-likelihood psychometric procedures in two-alternative forced-choice: evaluation and recommendations. Perception and Psychophysics. 42:1987;240-249.
8. Mayer M.J., Tyler C.W. Invariance of the slope of the psychometric function with spatial summation. Journal of the Optical Society of America A. 3:1986;1166-1172.
9. Nachmias J. On the psychometric function for contrast detection. Vision Research. 21:1981;215-223.
10. Pelli D.G. Uncertainty explains many aspects of visual contrast detection and discrimination. Journal of the Optical Society of America A. 2:1985;1508-1531.
11. Press W.H., Teukolsky S.A., Vetterling W.T., Flannery B.P. Numerical recipes in C. The art of scientific computing. second ed. 1992;Cambridge University Press, Cambridge. p. 278-282.
12. Spahr J. Optimization of the presentation pattern in automated static perimetry. Vision Research. 15:1975;1275-1281.
13. Spry P.G.D., Johnson C.A., McKendrick A.M., Turpin A. Variability components of standard automated perimetry and frequency-doubling technology perimetry. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science. 42:2001;1404-1410.
14. Treutwein B. Adaptive psychophysical procedures. Vision Research. 35:1995;2503-2522.
15. Watson A.B. Probability summation over time. Vision Research. 19:1979;515-522.
16. Watson A.B., Fitzhugh A. The method of constant stimuli is inefficient. Perception and Psychophysics. 47:1990;87-91.
17. Watson A.B., Pelli D.G. QUEST: A Bayesian adaptive psychometric method. Perception and Psychophysics. 33:1983;113-120.
18. Weber J., Rau S. The properties of perimetric thresholds in normal and glaucomatous eyes. German Journal of Ophthalmology. 1:1992;79-85.