Toggle Main Menu Toggle Search

ePrints

Two choices good, four choices better: For measuring stereoacuity in children, a four-alternative forced-choice paradigm is more efficient than two

Lookup NU author(s): Dr Kathleen Vancleef, Professor Jenny Read, Dr Ignacio Serrano-Pedraza

Downloads


Licence

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).


Abstract

© 2018 Vancleef et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Purpose Measuring accurate thresholds in children can be challenging. A typical psychophysical experiment is usually too long to keep children engaged. However, a reduction in the number of trials decreases the precision of the threshold estimate. We evaluated the efficiency of forced-choice paradigms with 2 or 4 alternatives (2-AFC, 4-AFC) in a disparity detection experiment. 4-AFC paradigms are statistically more efficient, but also more cognitively demanding, which might offset their theoretical advantage in young children. Methods We ran simulations evaluating bias and precision of threshold estimates of 2-AFC and 4-AFC paradigms. In addition, we measured disparity thresholds in 43 children (aged 6 to 17 years) with a 4-AFC paradigm and in 49 children (aged 4 to 17 years) with a 2-AFC paradigm, both using an adaptive weighted one-up one-down staircase. Results Simulations indicated a similar bias and precision for a 2-AFC paradigm with double the number of trials as a 4-AFC paradigm. On average, estimated threshold of the simulated data was equal to the model threshold, indicating no bias. The precision was improved with an increasing number of trials. Likewise, our data showed a similar bias and precision for a 2-AFC paradigm with 60 trials as for a 4-AFC paradigm with 30 trials. Trials in the 4-AFC paradigm took slightly longer as participants scanned more alternatives. However, the 4-AFC task still ended up faster for a given precision. Conclusion Bias and precision were similar in a 4-AFC task compared to a 2-AFC task with double the number of trials. However, a 4-AFC paradigm was more time efficient and is therefore recommended.


Publication metadata

Author(s): Vancleef K, Read JCA, Herbert W, Goodship N, Woodhouse M, Serrano-Pedraza I

Publication type: Article

Publication status: Published

Journal: PLoS One

Year: 2018

Volume: 13

Issue: 7

Online publication date: 30/07/2018

Acceptance date: 13/07/2018

ISSN (electronic): 1932-6203

Publisher: Public Library of Science

URL: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201366

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0201366


Altmetrics

Altmetrics provided by Altmetric


Actions

    Link to this publication


Share