Basic Psychology: Psychophysics

 Contents

  1. Introduction
  2. History
  3. Thresholds
  4. Experimentation 

Introduction

The quantitative study of the relationship between physical stimuli and the sensations and perceptions they produce is known as psychophysics. Psychophysics has been defined as "the scientific study of the relationship between stimulus and sensation," or "the analysis of perceptual processes by studying the effect on a subject's experience or behaviour of systematically varying the properties of a stimulus along one or more physical dimensions." 

Psychophysics also refers to a broad category of methods for studying a perceptual system. Threshold measurement, ideal observer analysis, and signal detection theory are all heavily used in modern applications.

Psychophysics has numerous and significant practical applications. For example, in the field of digital signal processing, psychophysics has aided in the development of lossy compression models and methods. These models explain why humans perceive very little loss of signal quality when lossy compression is used to format audio and video signals.

History

Many of the classic techniques and theories of psychophysics were developed in 1860, when Gustav Theodor Fechner published Elemente der Psychophysik in Leipzig (Elements of Psychophysics). He coined the term "psychophysics," which refers to research that attempts to link physical stimuli to the contents of consciousness, such as sensations (Empfindungen). Fechner's goal as a physicist and philosopher was to develop a method that connects matter to the mind, connecting the publicly observable world and a person's privately experienced impression of it. In the early 1830s, the German physiologist Ernst Heinrich Weber in Leipzig obtained experimental results on the sense of touch and light, most notably those on the minimum discernible difference in intensity of stimuli of moderate strength (just noticeable difference; jnd), which Weber demonstrated to be a constant fraction of the reference intensity and which Fechner referred to as Weber's law. Fechner derived his well-known logarithmic scale, now known as the Fechner scale, from this. Weber and Fechner's work laid the groundwork for psychology as a science, with Wilhelm Wundt establishing the first laboratory for psychological research in Leipzig (Institut für experimentelle Psychologie). Fechner's work systematised the introspectionist approach (psychology as the science of consciousness), which had to contend with the Behaviorist approach, which believes that even verbal responses are as physical as the stimuli.

When psychological research in Nazi Germany came to a halt in the 1930s, both approaches were gradually replaced by the use of stimulus-response relationships as evidence for conscious or unconscious processing in the mind. [8] Charles S. Peirce studied and expanded on Fechner's work, which was aided by his student Joseph Jastrow, who went on to become a well-known experimental psychologist in his own right. Peirce and Jastrow mostly agreed with Fechner's empirical findings, but not entirely. A classic experiment by Peirce and Jastrow, in particular, rejected Fechner's estimation of a threshold of perception of weights as far too high. Peirce and Jastrow invented randomised experiments in their experiment: they randomly assigned volunteers to a blinded, repeated-measures design to assess their ability to discriminate weights. Peirce's experiment influenced other psychologists and educators, who established a research tradition of randomised experiments in laboratories and specialised textbooks in the 1900s. The Peirce–Jastrow experiments were part of Peirce's pragmaticism program's application to human perception; other studies looked at light perception, for example. "Mr. Peirce's logic courses gave me my first real experience of intellectual muscle," Jastrow wrote. Though I quickly joined Stanley Hall's laboratory of psychology, it was Peirce who gave me my first training in the handling of a psychological problem while also stimulating my self-esteem by entrusting me, then relatively innocent of any laboratory habits, with a real bit of research. He borrowed the apparatus for me, which I took to my room, installed at my window, and used to make the observations when the lighting conditions were favourable. The findings were published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences under our joint names. The demonstration that traces of sensory effect too slight to register in consciousness could nonetheless influence judgement may have been a persistent motive that induced me to write a book on The Subconscious years later." This work clearly distinguishes observable cognitive performance from conscious expression.

Modern approaches to sensory perception, such as research on vision, hearing, or touch, measure what the perceiver's judgement extracts from the stimulus, often ignoring the question of what sensations are being felt. One prominent method is based on signal detection theory and was developed for cases involving very weak stimuli. However, the subjectivist approach is still prevalent among those who follow in the footsteps of Stanley Smith Stevens (1906–1973). In contrast to Fechner's log-linear function (cf. Stevens' power law), Stevens revived the idea of a power law proposed by 19th century researchers. He also advocated for the assignment of numbers in proportion to the strength of stimuli, a technique known as magnitude estimation. Stevens also included techniques like magnitude production and cross-modality matching. He was against assigning stimulus strengths to points on a line labelled in order of strength. Nonetheless, that type of response is still common in applied psychophysics. Such multiple-category layouts are frequently referred to as Likert scaling, after the question items used by Likert to create multi-item psychometric scales, e.g., seven phrases ranging from "strongly agree" to "strongly disagree."

According to Omar Khaleefa , the mediaeval scientist Alhazen should be considered the founder of psychophysics. Although al-Haytham provided numerous subjective accounts of vision, there is no evidence that he used quantitative psychophysical techniques, and such claims have been refuted.

Thresholds

Psychophysicists typically use objectively measured experimental stimuli, such as pure tones varying in intensity or lights varying in luminance. Vision, hearing, touch (including skin and enteric perception), taste, smell, and the sense of time have all been studied. There are three main areas of investigation, regardless of sensory domain: absolute thresholds, discrimination thresholds, and scaling.

A threshold (or limen) is the point of intensity at which a participant can only detect the presence of a stimulus (absolute threshold) or the presence of a difference between two stimuli (differential threshold) (difference threshold ). Stimuli with intensities less than the threshold are deemed undetectable (hence: sub-liminal). Stimuli at values close to a threshold are frequently detectable some proportion of the time; thus, a threshold is defined as the point at which a stimulus, or change in a stimulus, is detected some proportion p of the time.

Detection

An absolute threshold is the level of intensity of a stimulus at which the subject can detect the presence of the stimulus some of the time (a p level of 50 percent is often used). An absolute threshold is the number of hairs on the back of one's hand that must be touched before it can be felt – a participant may be unable to feel a single hair being touched, but may be able to feel two or three as this exceeds the threshold. The absolute threshold is also known as the detection threshold. Absolute thresholds are measured using a variety of techniques (as with discrimination thresholds; see below).

 Discrimination

A difference threshold (or just-noticeable difference, JND) is the magnitude of the smallest difference between two stimuli of varying intensities that the participant can detect some percentage of the time (the percentage depending on the kind of task). Several methods are used to test this threshold. The subject may be asked to adjust one stimulus until it is perceived to be the same as the other (method of adjustment), to describe the direction and magnitude of the difference between two stimuli, or to decide whether the intensities of two stimuli are the same or not (forced choice). The justnoticeable difference (JND) is not a fixed quantity; rather, it is determined by the intensity of the stimuli being measured as well as the specific sense being measured. According to Weber's Law, despite variations in intensity, the just-noticeable difference of a stimulus is a constant proportion. The justnoticeable difference (JND) is not a fixed quantity; rather, it is determined by the intensity of the stimuli being measured as well as the specific sense being measured. According to Weber's Law, despite variations in intensity, the just-noticeable difference of a stimulus is a constant proportion.

The experimenter's goal in discrimination experiments is to determine when the difference between two stimuli, such as two weights or two sounds, is detectable. The subject is shown one stimulus, such as a weight, and asked whether another weight is heavier or lighter (in some experiments, the subject may also say the two weights are the same). The subject perceives the two weights to be the same at the point of subjective equality (PSE). The magnitude of the difference in stimuli that the subject notices some proportion p of the time is referred to as the just-noticeable difference (DL) (50 percent is usually used for p in the comparison task). Furthermore, a two-alternative forced choice (2-afc) paradigm can be used to determine the point at which performance on a discrimination between two alternatives reduces to chance (p will then typically be 75 percent because p=50 percent corresponds to chance in the 2-afc task).

Because there is always background noise interfering with our ability to detect stimuli, absolute and difference thresholds are sometimes considered similar in principle.

Experimentation

Experiments in psychophysics seek to determine whether a subject can detect a stimulus, identify it, distinguish it from another stimulus, or describe the magnitude or nature of this difference. Strasburger examines software for psychophysical experimentation.

Classical psychophysical methods

For testing subjects' perception in stimulus detection and difference detection experiments, three methods have traditionally been used: the method of limits, the method of constant stimuli, and the method of adjustment.

Method of limits

The ascending method of limits begins with a property of the stimulus that is so low that it cannot be detected, then gradually increases until the participant reports that they are aware of it. For example, if the experiment is attempting to determine the smallest amplitude of sound that can be detected, the sound begins too quietly to be perceived and gradually becomes louder. This is reversed in the descending method of limits. In each case, the threshold is defined as the level of the stimulus property at which the stimuli are detected for the first time.

The ascending and descending methods are used alternately in experiments, and the thresholds are averaged. One disadvantage of these methods is that the subject may become accustomed to reporting that they perceive a stimulus and may continue to report in this manner even after the threshold has been reached (the error of habituation). In contrast, the subject may anticipate that the stimulus is about to become detectable or undetectable and make a hasty decision (the error of anticipation).

Georg von Békésy introduced the staircase procedure in his study of auditory perception in 1960 to avoid these potential pitfalls. In this method, the sound begins audible and gradually becomes quieter after each of the subject's responses, until the subject reports not hearing it. At that point, the sound is gradually increased in volume until the subject reports hearing it, at which point it is gradually reduced in volume. This allows the experimenter to "zero in" on the threshold.

Method of constant stimuli

The levels of a certain property of the stimulus are not related from one trial to the next in the method of constant stimuli, but are presented randomly rather than in ascending or descending order. This prevents the subject from predicting the level of the next stimulus, reducing errors of habituation and expectation. For 'absolute thresholds,' the subject reports whether or not they can detect the stimulus. There must be a constant comparison stimulus with each of the various levels for 'difference thresholds.' In an 1852 paper, Friedrich Hegelmaier described the method of constant stimuli. When several conditions are interleaved, this method allows for full sampling of the psychometric function, but it can result in a large number of trials.

Method of adjustment

The subject is asked to control the level of the stimulus and adjust it until it is barely detectable against the background noise or is the same as the level of another stimulus in the adjustment method. The adjustment is made several times. This is also known as the average error method. [23] In this method, the observers control the magnitude of the variable stimulus, starting with a level that is clearly greater or lower than a standard one and varying it until they are satisfied with the subjective equality of the two. After each adjustment, the difference between the variable and standard stimuli is recorded, and the error is tabulated for a large series. Finally, the mean is computed, yielding the average error, which can be used as a measure of sensitivity.

Adaptive psychophysical methods

The traditional methods of experimentation are frequently argued to be inefficient. This is because the psychometric threshold is usually unknown prior to testing, and the majority of the data is collected at points on the psychometric function that provide little information about the parameter of interest, which is usually the threshold. Adaptive staircase procedures (or the traditional method of adjustment) can be used to cluster the sampled points around the psychometric threshold. If the slope of the psychometric function is also of interest, data points can be spread over a slightly wider range. Thus, adaptive methods can be optimised for estimating only the threshold or both the threshold and the slope. Adaptive methods are divided into two types: staircase procedures (described further below) and Bayesian, or maximum-likelihood, methods. Staircase methods, which rely solely on the previous response, are simpler to implement. Bayesian methods take into account the entire set of previous stimulus-response pairs and are generally more resistant to attention lapses. Here are some real-world examples.

Staircase procedures

Staircases typically begin with a high-intensity stimulus that is easily detected. The intensity is then reduced until the observer makes a mistake, at which point the staircase'reverses' and the intensity is increased until the observer responds correctly, resulting in another reversal. The values for the final'reversals' are then averaged. There are numerous types of staircase procedures, each with its own set of decision and termination rules. Step-size, up/down rules, and the spread of the underlying psychometric function determine where they converge on the psychometric function. Because the threshold values obtained from staircases can vary greatly, care must be taken in their design. Garcia-Perez proposed some practical recommendations after modelling many different staircase algorithms.

The 1-up-N-down staircase is a popular staircase design (with fixed-step sizes). If the participant correctly responds N times in a row, the intensity of the stimulus is reduced by one step size. If the participant responds incorrectly, the stimulus intensity is increased by one size. The mean midpoint of all runs is used to calculate a threshold. Asymptotically, this estimate approaches the correct threshold.

Bayesian and maximum-likelihood procedures

From the observer's point of view, Bayesian and maximum-likelihood (ML) adaptive procedures behave similarly to staircase procedures. The selection of the next intensity level, on the other hand, works differently: Following each observer response, the likelihood of where the threshold lies is calculated from the set of this and all previous stimulus/response pairs. The best estimate for the threshold is then chosen as the point of maximum likelihood, and the next stimulus is presented at that level (since a decision at that level will add the most information). A prior likelihood is also included in the calculation in a Bayesian procedure. Bayesian and ML procedures take longer to implement than staircase procedures but are thought to be more robust. Quest, ML-PEST,, and Kontsevich & Tyler's method are examples of well-known procedures of this type.

Magnitude estimation

People are asked to assign numbers in proportion to the magnitude of the stimulus in the typical case. This psychometric function of their geometric means is frequently a power law with a stable, repeatable exponent. Although contexts can cause changes in the law and exponent, those changes are stable and repeatable. Instead of numbers, other sensory or cognitive dimensions can be used to match a stimulus, transforming the method into "magnitude production" or "cross-modality matching." The exponents of those dimensions discovered during numerical magnitude estimation predict the exponents discovered during magnitude production. Because of the limited range of categorical anchors, such as those used by Likert as items in attitude scales, magnitude estimation generally yields lower exponents for the psychophysical function than multiplecategory responses.

References

Steingrimsson, R.; Luce, R. D. (2006). "Empirical evaluation of a model of global psychophysical judgments: III. A form for the psychophysical function and intensity filtering". Journal of Mathematical Psychology. 50: 15–29. doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2005.11.005 (https://doi.o rg/10.1016%2Fj.jmp.2005.11.005). 






Comments

Thank You