The multivariate adaptive design for efficient estimation of the time course of perceptual adaptation
In experiments on behavioral adaptation, hundreds or even thousands of trials per subject are often required in order to accurately recover the many psychometric functions that characterize adaptation’s time course. More efficient methods for measuring perceptual changes over time would be beneficial to such efforts. In this article, we propose two methods to adaptively select the optimal stimuli sequentially in an experiment on adaptation: These are the minimum entropy (ME) method and the match probability (MP) method. The ME method minimizes the uncertainty about the joint posterior distribution of the function parameters at each trial and is mathematically equivalent to Zhao, Lesmes, and Lu’s (2019) method, which efficiently measures time courses of perceptual change by maximizing information gain. The MP method selects the next stimulus that makes the value of the psychometric function closest to .5—that is, where the probability of choosing either one of the two options for each stimulus is closest to .5. We extended Zhao et al.’s (2019) work by evaluating the ME method in a new domain (contrast adaptation) with two simulation studies that compared it to MP and two other methods (i.e., traditional staircase and random methods), and also explored the optimal block length. ME outperformed the other three methods in general, and using fewer longer blocks generally produced better parameter recovery than using more shorter blocks.
KeywordsAdaptive design Minimum entropy Perceptual adaptation Time course Tilt aftereffect
This project was supported by grant numbers IES R305D160010, NSF SES-1659328, NIH R01HD079439, and NSFC 31300862.
Open Practice Statement
The simulated data and source code for all experiments are available at https://sites.uw.edu/pmetrics/publications-and-source-code/.
- Cheng, Y. (2008). Computerized adaptive testing—New developments and applications (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana-Champaign, IL.Google Scholar
- Clifford, C. W. G., & Rhodes, G. (2005). Fitting the mind to the world: Adaptation and after-effects in high-level vision. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Cobo-Lewis, A. (1996). An adaptive method for estimating multiple parameters of a psychometric function. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 40, 353–354.Google Scholar
- Lesmes, L. A., Lu, Z.-L., Baek, J., Tran, N., Dosher, B. A., & Albright, T. D. (2015). Developing Bayesian adaptive methods for estimating sensitivity thresholds (d’) in yes–no and forced-choice tasks. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1070. doi: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01070 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- Mulder, J., & van der Linden, W. J. (2010). Multidimensional adaptive testing with Kullback–Leibler information item selection. In W. J. van der Linden & C. A. W. Glas (Eds.), Elements of adaptive testing (pp. 77–101). New York, NY: Springer.Google Scholar
- Tuerlinckx, F., Rijmen, F., Verbeke, G., & De Boeck, P. (2006). Statistical inference in generalized linear mixed models: A review. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 59, 225–255.Google Scholar
- Zhao, Y. K., Lesmes, L. A., & Lu, Z.-L. (2017). The quick change detection method: Bayesian adaptive assessment of the time course of perceptual sensitivity change. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 58, 5633.Google Scholar