ABSTRACT
One of the most precise methods to establish psychometric functions and estimate threshold and slope parameters is the constant stimuli procedure. The large distribution of predetermined stimulus values presented to observers enables the psychometric functions to be fully developed, but makes this procedure time-consuming. Adaptive procedures enable reliable threshold estimation while reducing the number of trials by concentrating stimulus presentations around observers' supposed threshold. Here, the stimulus value for the next trial depends on observer's responses to the previous trials. One recent improvement of these procedures is to also estimate the slope (related to discrimination sensitivity). The Bayesian QUEST+ procedure (Watson Journal of Vision, 17(3), 10, 2017), a generalization and extension of the QUEST procedure, includes this refinement. Surprisingly, this procedure is barely used. Our goal was to empirically assess its precision to evaluate size, orientation, or temporal perception, in three yes/no discrimination tasks that increase in demands. In 72 adult participants in total, we compared points of subjective equivalence (PSEs) or simultaneity (PSSs) as well as discrimination sensitivity obtained with the QUEST+, constant stimuli, and simple up-down staircase procedures. While PSEs did not differ between procedures, sensitivity estimates obtained with the 64-trials QUEST+ procedure were overestimated (i.e., just-noticeable differences, or JNDs, were underestimated). Overall, agreement between procedures was good, and was at its best for the easiest tasks. This study empirically confirmed that the QUEST+ procedure can be considered as a method of choice to accelerate PSE estimation, while keeping in mind that sensitivity estimation should be handled with caution.
