Psychometrika

, 74:603 | Cite as

A Truncated-Probit Item Response Model for Estimating Psychophysical Thresholds

  • Richard D. Morey
  • Jeffrey N. Rouder
  • Paul L. Speckman
Open Access
Article

Abstract

Human abilities in perceptual domains have conventionally been described with reference to a threshold that may be defined as the maximum amount of stimulation which leads to baseline performance. Traditional psychometric links, such as the probit, logit, and t, are incompatible with a threshold as there are no true scores corresponding to baseline performance. We introduce a truncated probit link for modeling thresholds and develop a two-parameter IRT model based on this link. The model is Bayesian and analysis is performed with MCMC sampling. Through simulation, we show that the model provides for accurate measurement of performance with thresholds. The model is applied to a digit-classification experiment in which digits are briefly flashed and then subsequently masked. Using parameter estimates from the model, individuals’ thresholds for flashed-digit discrimination is estimated.

Keywords

IRT item response theory threshold thresholds psychometrics psychophysics Bayesian hierarchical models MAC mass at chance 

References

  1. Abrams, R., Klinger, M., & Greenwald, A. (2002). Subliminal words activate semantic categories (not automated motor responses). Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 100–106. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Albert, J.H., & Chib, S. (1993). Bayesian analysis of binary and polychotomous response data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88, 669–679. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andersen, E.B. (1973). Conditional inference for multiple-choice questionnaires. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 26, 31–44. Google Scholar
  4. Breitmeyer, B.G. (1984). Visual masking: An integrative approach. London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  5. Dehaene, S., Naccache, L., Le Clech, G., Koechlin, E., Mueller, M., & Dehaene-Lambertz, G. (1998). Imaging unconscious semantic priming. Nature, 395, 597–600. CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Eimer, M., & Schlaghecken, F. (2002). Links between conscious awareness and response inhibition: Evidence from masked priming. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 9, 514–520. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gelfand, A., & Smith, A.F.M. (1990). Sampling based approaches to calculating marginal densities. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 85, 398–409. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gelman, A., Carlin, J.B., Stern, H.S., & Rubin, D.B. (2004). Bayesian data analysis (2nd ed.). London: Chapman and Hall. Google Scholar
  9. Geman, S., & Geman, D. (1984). Stochastic relaxation. Gibbs distribution, and the Bayesian restoration of images. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 6, 721–741. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Geweke, J. (1992). Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to the calculation of posterior moments. In J.M. Bernardo, J.O. Berger, A.P. Dawid, & A.F.M. Smith (Eds.), Bayesian statistics 4. London: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
  11. Liu, S.J., & Sabatti, C. (2000). Generalised Gibbs sampler and multigrid Monte Carlo for Bayesian computation. Biometrika, 87, 353–369. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Lord, F.M., & Novick, M.R. (1968). Statistical theories of mental test scores. Reading: Addison-Wesley. Google Scholar
  13. Morey, R.D., Rouder, J.N., & Speckman, P.L. (2008). A statistical model for discriminating between subliminal and near-liminal performance. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 52, 21–36. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Rasch, G. (1960). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment tests. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for Educational Research. Google Scholar
  15. Reingold, E.M., & Merikle, P.M. (1988). Using direct and indirect measures to study perception without awareness. Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 563–575. Google Scholar
  16. Rouder, J.N., & Lu, J. (2005). An introduction to Bayesian hierarchical models with an application in the theory of signal detection. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 12, 573–604. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Rouder, J.N., Morey, R.D., Speckman, P.L., & Pratte, M.S. (2007). Detecting chance: A solution to the null sensitivity problem in subliminal priming. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 14, 597–605. PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Snodgrass, M., Bernat, E., & Shevrin, H. (2004). Unconscious perception: A model-based approach to method and evidence. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 888–895. Google Scholar
  19. Spiegelhalter, D.J., Best, N.G., Carlin, B.P., & van der Linde, A. (2002). Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit (with discussion). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Statistical Methodology), 64, 583–639. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Swaminathan, H., & Gifford, J.A. (1982). Bayesian estimation in the Rasch model. Journal of Educational Statistics, 7, 175–191. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Taylor, M.M., & Creelman, C.D. (1967). PEST: Efficient estimates on probability functions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 41, 782–787. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tierney, L. (1994). Markov chains for exploring posterior distributions. Annals of Statistics, 22, 1701–1728. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Verhelst, N.D., & Glas, C.A.W. (1995). The one parameter logistic model. In G.H. Fischer & I.W. Molenaar (Eds.), Rasch models: Foundations, recent developments, and applications. New York: Springer. Google Scholar
  24. Vorberg, D., Mattler, U., Heinecke, A., Schmidt, T., & Schwarzbach, J. (2003). Different time course for the visual perception and action priming. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 100, 6275–6280. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Watson, A.B., & Pelli, D.G. (1983). QUEST: A Bayesian adaptive psychometric method. Perception & Psychophysics, 33, 113–120. Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychometric Society 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard D. Morey
    • 1
  • Jeffrey N. Rouder
    • 2
  • Paul L. Speckman
    • 2
  1. 1.DPMGUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.University of MissouriColumbiaUSA

Personalised recommendations