ArticlePloS one2018
Performance metrics for an application-driven selection and optimization of psychophysical sampling procedures.
Article in PloS one, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
When estimating psychometric functions with sampling procedures, psychophysical assessments should be precise and accurate while being as efficient as possible to reduce assessment duration. The estimation performance of sampling procedures is commonly evaluated in computer simulations for single psychometric functions and reported using metrics as a function of number of trials. However, the estimation performance of a sampling procedure may vary for different psychometric functions. Therefore, the results of these type of evaluations may not be generalizable to a heterogeneous population of interest. In addition, the maximum number of trials is often imposed by time restrictions, especially in clinical applications, making trial-based metrics suboptimal. Hence, the benefit of these simulations to select and tune an ideal sampling procedure for a specific application is limited. We suggest to evaluate the estimation performance of sampling procedures in simulations covering the entire range of psychometric functions found in a population of interest, and propose a comprehensive set of performance metrics for a detailed analysis. To illustrate the information gained from these metrics in an application example, six sampling procedures were evaluated in a computer simulation based on prior knowledge on the population distribution and requirements from proprioceptive assessments. The metrics revealed limitations of the sampling procedures, such as inhomogeneous or systematically decreasing performance depending on the psychometric functions, which can inform the tuning process of a sampling procedure. More advanced metrics allowed directly comparing overall performances of different sampling procedures and select the best-suited sampling procedure for the example application. The proposed analysis metrics can be used for any sampling procedure and the estimation of any parameter of a psychometric function, independent of the shape of the psychometric function and of how such a parameter was estimated. This framework should help to accelerate the development process of psychophysical assessments.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.