The best fitting of three contemporary observer models reveals how participants' strategy influences the window of subjective synchrony.

IF 2.1 3区 心理学 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance Pub Date : 2023-12-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-02 DOI:10.1037/xhp0001154
Kielan Yarrow, Joshua A Solomon, Derek H Arnold, Warrick Roseboom
{"title":"The best fitting of three contemporary observer models reveals how participants' strategy influences the window of subjective synchrony.","authors":"Kielan Yarrow, Joshua A Solomon, Derek H Arnold, Warrick Roseboom","doi":"10.1037/xhp0001154","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>When experimenters vary the timing between two intersensory events, and participants judge their simultaneity, an inverse-U-shaped psychometric function is obtained. Typically, this <i>simultaneity function</i> is first fitted with a model for each participant separately, before best-fitting parameters are utilized (e.g., compared across conditions) in the second stage of a two-step inferential procedure. Often, simultaneity-function width is interpreted as representing sensitivity to asynchrony, and/or ascribed theoretical equivalence to a window of multisensory temporal binding. Here, we instead fit a single (principled) multilevel model to data from the entire group and across several conditions at once. By asking 20 participants to sometimes be more conservative in their judgments, we demonstrate how the width of the simultaneity function is prone to strategic change and thus questionable as a measure of either sensitivity to asynchrony or multisensory binding. By repeating our analysis with three different models (two implying a decision based directly on subjective asynchrony, and a third deriving this decision from the correlation between filtered responses to sensory inputs) we find that the first model, which hypothesizes, in particular, Gaussian latency noise and difficulty maintaining the stability of decision criteria across trials, is most plausible for these data. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":50195,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001154","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/2 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When experimenters vary the timing between two intersensory events, and participants judge their simultaneity, an inverse-U-shaped psychometric function is obtained. Typically, this simultaneity function is first fitted with a model for each participant separately, before best-fitting parameters are utilized (e.g., compared across conditions) in the second stage of a two-step inferential procedure. Often, simultaneity-function width is interpreted as representing sensitivity to asynchrony, and/or ascribed theoretical equivalence to a window of multisensory temporal binding. Here, we instead fit a single (principled) multilevel model to data from the entire group and across several conditions at once. By asking 20 participants to sometimes be more conservative in their judgments, we demonstrate how the width of the simultaneity function is prone to strategic change and thus questionable as a measure of either sensitivity to asynchrony or multisensory binding. By repeating our analysis with three different models (two implying a decision based directly on subjective asynchrony, and a third deriving this decision from the correlation between filtered responses to sensory inputs) we find that the first model, which hypothesizes, in particular, Gaussian latency noise and difficulty maintaining the stability of decision criteria across trials, is most plausible for these data. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
三个当代观察者模型的最佳拟合揭示了参与者的策略如何影响主观同步窗口。
当实验者改变两个传感器间事件的时间,并且参与者判断它们的同时性时,得到了一个倒U型心理测量函数。通常,在两步推理程序的第二阶段中使用最佳拟合参数(例如,在不同条件下进行比较)之前,首先分别为每个参与者对该同时性函数进行模型拟合。通常,同时性函数宽度被解释为表示对异步的敏感性,和/或将理论等价性归因于多感觉时间绑定的窗口。在这里,我们将单个(原则性)多级模型同时适用于来自整个组和多个条件的数据。通过让20名参与者有时在判断中更加保守,我们展示了同时性函数的宽度是如何容易发生战略变化的,因此作为衡量对异步或多感官绑定敏感度的指标是值得怀疑的。通过用三个不同的模型重复我们的分析(两个模型意味着直接基于主观异步的决策,第三个模型从对感觉输入的过滤反应之间的相关性得出该决策),我们发现第一个模型,特别是假设高斯潜伏噪声和难以在试验中保持决策标准的稳定性,对于这些数据来说是最合理的。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.50
自引率
9.50%
发文量
145
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance publishes studies on perception, control of action, perceptual aspects of language processing, and related cognitive processes.
期刊最新文献
Speeded classification of visual events is sensitive to crossmodal intensity correspondence. Proactive suppression is an implicit process that cannot be summoned on demand. First impressions from faces in dynamic approach-avoidance contexts. Between-task transfer of item-specific control is replicable and extends to novel conditions. No evidence in favor of the existence of "intentional" binding.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1