Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37987294›Full record

ArticleVision (Basel, Switzerland)2023

The Random Step Method for Measuring the Point of Subjective Equality.

Penghan Wang, Alexandre Reynaud

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Vision (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

2 authors.

Penghan WangMcGill Vision Research Unit, Department of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3G 1A4, Canada.
Alexandre ReynaudMcGill Vision Research Unit, Department of Ophthalmology & Visual Sciences, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3G 1A4, Canada.

Funding

The Research Institute of the McGill University Health Centre starter fund
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Points of Subjective Equality (PSE) are commonly measured using staircase or constant stimuli methods. However, the staircase method is highly dependent on the step size, and the constant stimuli method is time-consuming. Thus, we wanted to develop an efficient and quick method to estimate both the PSE and the slope of the psychometric function. We developed a random-step algorithm in which a one-up-one-down rule is followed but with a random step size in a pre-defined range of test levels. Each stimulus would be chosen depending on the previous response of the subject. If the subject responded "up", any random level in the lower range would be picked for the next trial. And if the subject responded "down", any random level in the upper range would be picked for the next trial. This procedure would result in a bell-shaped distribution of the test levels around the estimated PSE, while a substantial amount of trials would still be dispersed at both bounds of the range. We then compared this method with traditional constant stimuli procedure on a task based on the Pulfrich phenomenon while the PSEs of participants could be varied using different neutral density filters. Our random-step method provided robust estimates of both the PSE and the slope under various noise levels with small trial counts, and we observed a significant correlation between the PSEs obtained with the two methods. The random-step method is an efficient way to measure the full psychometric function when testing time is critical, such as in clinical settings.

Indexed as

adaptive methodpoint of subjective equalityPSEpsychometric functionpsychophysics

Identifiers

PMID37987294
PMCPMC10661322

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.