The Random Step Method for Measuring the Point of Subjective Equality
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Points of Subjective Equality (PSE) are commonly measured using staircase or constant stimuli methods. However, the staircase method is highly dependent on the step size, and the constant stimuli method is time-consuming. Thus, we wanted to develop an efficient and quick method to estimate both the PSE and the slope of the psychometric function. We developed a random-step algorithm in which a one-up-one-down rule is followed but with a random step size in a pre-defined range of test levels. Each stimulus would be chosen depending on the previous response of the subject. If the subject responded "up", any random level in the lower range would be picked for the next trial. And if the subject responded "down", any random level in the upper range would be picked for the next trial. This procedure would result in a bell-shaped distribution of the test levels around the estimated PSE, while a substantial amount of trials would still be dispersed at both bounds of the range. We then compared this method with traditional constant stimuli procedure on a task based on the Pulfrich phenomenon while the PSEs of participants could be varied using different neutral density filters. Our random-step method provided robust estimates of both the PSE and the slope under various noise levels with small trial counts, and we observed a significant correlation between the PSEs obtained with the two methods. The random-step method is an efficient way to measure the full psychometric function when testing time is critical, such as in clinical settings.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.003 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".