The single interval adjustment matrix (SIAM) yes-no task: An empirical assessment using auditory and gustatory stimuli

Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

Volumn 73, Issue 6, 2011, Pages 1934-1947

  Shepherd, Daniel ^a,b   Hautus, Michael J ^b   Stocks, Miriam A ^b   Quek, Siew Y ^b  

^a AUCKLAND UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF AUCKLAND   (New Zealand)

Author keywords

Audition; Gustation; Psychometrics testing

Indexed keywords

SUCROSE;

ARTICLE; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; DECISION MAKING; HEARING; HUMAN; PSYCHOMETRY; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICS; TASTE ACUITY; VALIDATION STUDY;

AUDITORY PERCEPTION; AUDITORY THRESHOLD; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; HUMANS; PSYCHOMETRICS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SUCROSE; TASTE THRESHOLD;

EID: 79961184947     PISSN: 19433921     EISSN: 1943393X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13414-011-0137-3     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Amitay, S., Irwin, A., Hawkey, D. J. C., Cowan, J. A., & Moore, D. R. (2006). A comparison of adaptive procedures for rapid and reliable threshold assessment and training in naive listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 119, 1616-1625.
2. Baker, R. J., & Rosen, S. (2001). Evaluation of maximum-likelihood threshold estimation with tone-in-noise masking. British Journal of Audiology, 35, 43-52.
3. Brooks, J., Wong, T., & Robertson, L. (2005). Crossing the midline: Reducing attentional deficits via interhemispheric interactions. Neuropsychologia, 43, 572-582.
4. Brown, L. G., & Rudd, M. E. (1998). Evidence for a noise gain control mechanism in human vision. Vision Research, 38, 1925-1933.
5. Cornsweet, T. N. (1962). The staircase-method in psychophysics. The American Journal of Psychology, 75, 485-491.
6. Egan, J. P., Greenber, G. Z., & Schulman, A. I. (1961). Operating characteristics, signal detectability, and the method of free response. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 33, 993-1007.
7. Florentine, M., Fastl, H., & Buus, S. (1988). Temporal integration in normal hearing, cochlear impairment, and impairment simulated by masking. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 84, 195-203.
8. Fukunaga, A., Uematsu, H., & Sugimoto, K. (2005). Influences of aging on taste perception and oral somatic sensation. Journals of Gerontology, 60A, P109-P113.
9. Green, D. M. (1964). General prediction relating yes-no and forced-choice results. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 36, 1042.
10. Green, D. M. (1990). Stimulus selection on adaptive psychophysical procedures. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 87, 2662-2674.
11. Green, D. M. (1993). A maximum-likelihood method for estimating thresholds in a yes-no task. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 93, 2096-2105.
12. Green, D. M. (1995). Maximum-likelihood procedures and the inattentive observer. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 97, 3749-3760.
13. Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1974). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley. Original work published 1966.
14. Gu, X., & Green, D. M. (1994). Further studies of a maximum-likelihood yes-no procedure. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 96, 93-101.
15. Hautus, M. J., Stocks, M., & Shepherd, D. (2010). The single interval adjustment matrix (SIAM) yes-no task applied to the measurement of sucrose thresholds. Journal of Sensory Studies, 25, 940-955.
16. Hesse, A. (1986). Comparison of several psychophysical procedures with respect to threshold estimates, reproducibility & efficiency. Acustica, 59, 263-266.
17. James, C. E., Laing, D. G., & Oram, N. (1997). A comparison of the ability of 8-9-year-old children and adults to detect taste stimuli. Physiology & Behavior, 62, 193-197.
18. Kaernbach, C. (1990a). SIAM: Adaptive yes-no task testing with the single-interval adjustment matrix. In F. Müller (Ed.), Proceedings of the sixth annual meeting of the international society for psychophysics (pp. 88-93). Würzburg: International Society for Psychophysics.
19. Kaernbach, C. (1990b). A single-interval adjustment-matrix (SIAM) procedure for unbiased adaptive testing. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 88, 2645-2655.
20. Kaernbach, C. (1991). Simple adaptive testing with the weighted up-down method. Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 227-229.
21. Kaernbach, C. (2001). Adaptive threshold estimation with unforced-choice tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 1377-1388.
22. Kershaw, C. D. (1985). Statistical properties of staircase estimates from two interval forced choice experiments. The British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 38, 35-43.
23. Klein, S. (2001). Measuring, estimating, and understanding the psychometric function: A commentary. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 1421-1455.
24. Kollmeier, B., Gilkey, R. H., & Sieben, U. K. (1988). Adaptive staircase techniques in psychoacoutics: A comparison of human data and a mathematical model. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 83, 1852-1862.
25. Kunka, M., Doty, R. L., & Settle, R. G. (1981). An examination of intertrial interval and gender influences on sucrose detection thresholds established by a modified staircase procedure. Perception, 10, 35-38.
26. Lecluyse, W., & Meddis, R. (2009). A simple single-interval adaptive procedure for estimating thresholds in normal and impaired listeners. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 126, 2570-2579.
27. Leek, M. (2001). Adaptive procedures in psychophysical research. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 1279-1292.
28. Leeuw, A. R., & Dreschler, W. A. (1998). The relation between otoacoustic emissions and the broadening of the auditory filter for higher levels. Hearing Research, 126, 1-10.
29. Levitt, H. (1971). Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 49, 467-477.
30. List, A., Brooks, J. K., Esterman, M., Flevaris, A. V., Landau, A. N., Bowman, G., Stanton, V., Vanvleet, T. M., Robertson, L. C., & Schendel, K. (2008). Visual hemispatial neglect, re-assessed. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 14, 243-256.
31. Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user's guide (2nd ed.). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
32. Madigan, R., & Williams, D. (1987). Maximum-likelihood psychometric procedures in two-alternative forced-choice: Evaluation and recommendations. Perception & Psychophysics, 42, 240-249.
33. McKee, S. P., Klein, S. A., & Teller, D. Y. (1985). Statistical properties of forced-choice psychometric functions: Implications of probit analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 37, 286-298.
34. Shepherd, D., & Hautus, M. J. (2009). Negative masking and the units problem in audition. Hearing Research, 247, 60-70.
35. Shepherd, D., Quek, S. Y., & Pathirana, S. (2008). Sucrose detection and the stability of the 2-AFC procedure in the presence of a confounding variable. Journal of Sensory Studies, 23, 600-613.
36. Stillman, J. A. (1989). A comparison of three adaptive psychophysical procedures using inexperienced listeners. Perception & Psychophysics, 46, 345-350.
37. Taylor, M. M., & Creelman, C. D. (1967). PEST: Efficient Estimates on Probability Functions. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 41, 782-787.
38. Taylor, M. M. (1971). On the efficiency of psychophysical measurement. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 49, 505-508.
39. Taylor, M. M., Forbes, S. M., & Creelman, C. D. (1983). PEST reduces bias in forced choice psychophysics. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 74, 1367-1374.
40. Treutwein, B. (1995). Adaptive psychophysical procedures. Vision Research, 35, 2503-2522.
41. Ulrich, R., & Vorberg, D. (2009). Estimating the difference limen in 2AFC tasks: Pitfalls and improved estimators. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 71, 1219-1227.