ArticleBehavior research methods2025
Consistency of perceptual response variability in size estimation and reproduction tasks.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Explanatory item response models for continuous data: A tutorial in R.Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Computational protocol for hierarchical Bayesian modeling of perception and generalization in fear conditioning.STAR protocols · 2026Article
- Bidirectional cross-modal fear generalization: semantic similarity in representation space as a foundational mechanism.Social cognitive and affective neuroscience · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Measuring perceptual uncertainty is important for understanding how perception influences post-perception behavior, while it remains unknown whether measured perceptual responses in behavioral tasks reflect true perceptual uncertainty or methodological artifacts. This study compared two size perception approaches: a visual analog scale (VAS) estimation task and a reproduction task. We recruited 180 participants who completed both tasks by estimating circle diameters on a VAS and adjusting circle sizes to match specified diameters. Our analysis used two Bayesian multilevel models - a variance decomposition model computing intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for overall response consistency, and a generative psychophysical model to characterize perceptual response patterns. Results revealed high overall response consistency across tasks, but detailed variance component analysis uncovered systematic method differences. Participant, stimulus, and interaction variances were consistently higher in the estimation task, indicating greater individual differences and more idiosyncratic responses. Psychophysical analyses further showed that the estimation task produced a steeper perceptual slope and a lower intercept compared to reproduction. Notably, while overall task-level perceptual uncertainty was nearly identical, the scaling of uncertainty with stimulus size was markedly stronger in estimation. These findings suggest that much of the observed variability reflects genuine perceptual uncertainty rather than measurement error, though distinct cognitive demands shape its expression. Our results confirm that both VAS and reproduction tasks yield consistent measures of perceptual variability, underscoring their value in behavioral research and the need for future studies to disentangle intrinsic perceptual processes from task-specific noise.
Indexed as
Identifiers
40155494What 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.