Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34258708›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2022

Central tendency biases must be accounted for to consistently capture Bayesian cue combination in continuous response data.

Stacey Aston, James Negen, Marko Nardini, Ulrik Beierholm

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Different types of uncertainty in multisensory perceptual decision making.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023
    Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Stacey AstonDepartment of Psychology, Durham University, Durham, UK. stacey.j.aston@durham.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2086-3826
James NegenSchool of Psychology, Liverpool John Moores University, Liverpool, UK.
Marko NardiniDepartment of Psychology, Durham University, Durham, UK.
Ulrik BeierholmDepartment of Psychology, Durham University, Durham, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Observers in perceptual tasks are often reported to combine multiple sensory cues in a weighted average that improves precision-in some studies, approaching statistically optimal (Bayesian) weighting, but in others departing from optimality, or not benefitting from combined cues at all. To correctly conclude which combination rules observers use, it is crucial to have accurate measures of their sensory precision and cue weighting. Here, we present a new approach for accurately recovering these parameters in perceptual tasks with continuous responses. Continuous responses have many advantages, but are susceptible to a central tendency bias, where responses are biased towards the central stimulus value. We show that such biases lead to inaccuracies in estimating both precision gains and cue weightings, two key measures used to assess sensory cue combination. We introduce a method that estimates sensory precision by regressing continuous responses on targets and dividing the variance of the residuals by the squared slope of the regression line, "correcting-out" the error introduced by the central bias and increasing statistical power. We also suggest a complementary analysis that recovers the sensory cue weights. Using both simulations and empirical data, we show that the proposed methods can accurately estimate sensory precision and cue weightings in the presence of central tendency biases. We conclude that central tendency biases should be (and can easily be) accounted for to consistently capture Bayesian cue combination in continuous response data.

Indexed as

CuesBayes TheoremBiasHumansCentral tendencyCue combinationSensory integration

Identifiers

PMID34258708
PMCPMC8863717

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.