ArticleFrontiers in neuroscience2026
Comparison of methods for quick estimation of psychometric thresholds.
Article in Frontiers in neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Threshold estimation plays a crucial role in modern cognitive science. Numerous psychophysical methods exist to quickly estimate key psychometric function parameters, like thresholds. Using Monte Carlo simulations of 60 to 120 trials, we compare stimulus selection methods in their ability to estimate thresholds. We evaluate model performance using measures including parameter bias, interquartile range, half-width of the limits of agreement and probability of missing the detection of participants responding randomly (miss rate). Psychometric functions are classically assumed to be monotonic, but they can be non-monotonic, with performance peaking and decreasing. Therefore, we investigate methods estimating threshold parameters for non-monotonic participants. We also assess methods' ability to accurately identify ground-truth threshold parameters when participants respond randomly, or have parameters outside the normal range. For monotonic participants, Bayesian methods outperform the Method Of Constant Stimuli (MOCS) by an order of magnitude. For non-monotonic participants, when methods assume monotonicity, even using 120 trials results in catastrophic inaccuracy with median biases over 4,000%. When assuming non-monotonicity instead, methods result in psychometric properties comparable to those obtained for monotonic participants. However, MOCS, Psi and psi-grid inaccurately identify participants responding randomly, showing miss rates over 21%. Two methods in the Psi family outperform other methods, reaching results comparable to the monotonic case. In all tested scenarios, the best methods are psi-marginal and psi-marg-grid, a new method that combines psi-marginal and psi-grid. When these two methods assume non-monotonicity, they impose little performance cost when evaluating truly monotonic functions (example of cost: miss rate increased from 0 to 4% for identifying participants responding randomly with 60 trials) and no cost with 120 trials. Among these methods, we therefore recommend psi-marg-grid and psi-marginal for efficient threshold estimation regardless of potential monotonicity.
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.