Abstract
The use of digital applications like in mobile phone or on the web to perform psychophysical measurements led to the introduction of algorithms to guide the users in test execution. In this paper we show four algorithms, two already well known: STRICTN and PEST, and a two that we propose: PESTN and BESTN. All the algorithms aim at estimating the level of a psychophysical capability by performing a sequence of simple tests; starting from initial level N, the test is executed until the target level is reached. They differ in the choice of the next steps in the sequences and the stopping condition. We have simulated the application of the algorithms and we have compared them by answering a set of research questions. Finally, we provide guidelines to choose the best algorithm based on the test goal. We found that while STRICTN provides optimal results, it requires the largest number of steps, and this may hinder its use; PESTN can overcome these limits without compromising the final results.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
This assumption could be relaxed provided that the classification of the stimulus is meaningful.
- 2.
The data and materials for all experiments are available at https://github.com/silviabonfanti/3d4ambAlgorithms.git.
References
Bach, M., Schmitt, C., Kromeier, M., Kommerell, G.: The Freiburg Stereoacuity test: automatic measurement of stereo threshold. Graefe’s Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 239(8), 562–566 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/s004170100317
Bonfanti, S., Gargantini, A.: Comparison of algorithms to measure a psychophysical threshold using digital applications: the stereoacuity case study. In: Pesquita, C., Fred, A.L.N., Gamboa, H. (eds.) Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies, BIOSTEC 2021, HEALTHINF, Online Streaming, 11–13 February 2021, vol. 5, pp. 78–86. SCITEPRESS (2021). https://doi.org/10.5220/0010204000780086
Bonfanti, S., Gargantini, A., Esposito, G., Facchin, A., Maffioletti, M., Maffioletti, S.: Evaluation of stereoacuity with a digital mobile application. Graefes Arch. Clin. Exp. Ophthalmol. 259(9), 2843–2848 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00417-021-05195-z
Bonfanti, S., Gargantini, A., Vitali, A.: A mobile application for the stereoacuity test. In: Duffy, V.G. (ed.) DHM 2015. LNCS, vol. 9185, pp. 315–326. Springer, Cham (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21070-4_32
Fleiss, J.L., Levin, B., Paik, M.C.: Statistical Methods for Rates and Proportions. Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics, 3rd edn. Wiley, Hoboken (2003)
Hess, R.F., et al.: A robust and reliable test to measure stereopsis in the clinic. Invest. Opthalmol. Vis. Sci. 57(3), 798 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1167/iovs.15-18690
Jones, P.R., Kalwarowsky, S., Braddick, O.J., Atkinson, J., Nardini, M.: Optimizing the rapid measurement of detection thresholds in infants. J. Vis. 15(11), 2 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1167/15.11.2
Kromeier, M., Schmitt, C., Bach, M., Kommerell, G.: Stereoacuity versus fixation disparity as indicators for vergence accuracy under prismatic stress. Ophthalmic Physiol. Opt. 23(1), 43–49 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1475-1313.2003.00089.x
Leek, M.R.: Adaptive procedures in psychophysical research. Percept. Psychophys. 63(8), 1279–1292 (2001). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194543
Li, R.W., et al.: Monocular blur alters the tuning characteristics of stereopsis for spatial frequency and size. R. Soc. Open Sci. 3(9), 160273 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.160273
Noether, G.E.: Introduction to Wilcoxon (1945) individual comparisons by ranking methods. In: Kotz, S., Johnson, N.L. (eds.) Breakthroughs in Statistics. Springer Series in Statistics, pp. 191–195. Springer, New York (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4612-4380-9_15
Stevens, S.S.: Problems and methods of psychophysics. Psychol. Bull. 55(4), 177–196 (1958)
Taylor, M.M., Creelman, C.D.: Pest: efficient estimates on probability functions. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 41(4A), 782–787 (1967)
Tidbury, L.P., O’Connor, A.R., Wuerger, S.M.: The effect of induced fusional demand on static and dynamic stereoacuity thresholds: the digital synoptophore. BMC Ophthalmol. 19(1) (2019). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12886-018-1000-2
Ushaw, G., et al.: Analysis of soft data for mass provision of stereoacuity testing through a serious game for health. In: Proceedings of the 2017 International Conference on Digital Health, DH 2017. ACM Press (2017). https://doi.org/10.1145/3079452.3079496
Vancleef, K., Read, J.C.A., Herbert, W., Goodship, N., Woodhouse, M., Serrano-Pedraza, I.: Two choices good, four choices better: for measuring stereoacuity in children, a four-alternative forced-choice paradigm is more efficient than two. PLOS ONE 13(7), e0201366 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201366
Wong, B.P.H., Woods, R.L., Peli, E.: Stereoacuity at distance and near. Optom. Vis. Sci. 79(12), 771–778 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1097/00006324-200212000-00009
Zhang, P., Zhao, Y., Dosher, B.A., Lu, Z.L.: Evaluating the performance of the staircase and quick change detection methods in measuring perceptual learning. J. Vis. 19(7), 14 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1167/19.7.14
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Bonfanti, S., Gargantini, A. (2022). Evaluation of Algorithms to Measure a Psychophysical Threshold Using Digital Applications. In: Gehin, C., et al. Biomedical Engineering Systems and Technologies. BIOSTEC 2021. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1710. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20664-1_8
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-20664-1_8
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-031-20663-4
Online ISBN: 978-3-031-20664-1
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)