TY - JOUR
T1 - Equality judgments cannot distinguish between attention effects on appearance and criterion
T2 - A reply to Schneider (2011)
AU - Anton-Erxleben, Katharina
AU - Abrams, Jared
AU - Carrasco, Marisa
N1 - Copyright:
Copyright 2012 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2011
Y1 - 2011
N2 - Whether attention modulates the appearance of stimulus features is debated. Whereas many previous studies using a comparative judgment have found evidence for such an effect, two recent studies using an equality judgment have not. Critically, these studies have relied on the assumption that the equality paradigm yields bias-free PSE estimates and is as sensitive as the comparative judgment, without testing these assumptions. Anton-Erxleben, Abrams, and Carrasco (2010) compared comparative judgments and equality judgments with and without the manipulation of attention. They demonstrated that the equality paradigm is less sensitive than the comparative judgment and also bias-prone. Furthermore, they reported an effect of attention on the PSE using both paradigms. Schneider (2011) questions the validity of the latter finding, stating that the data in the equality experiment are corrupted because of skew in the response distributions. Notably, this argument supports the original conclusion by Anton-Erxleben et al.: that the equality paradigm is bias-prone. Additionally, the necessary analyses to show that the attention effect observed in Anton-Erxleben et al. was due to skew in the data were not conducted. Here, we provide these analyses and show that although the equality judgment is bias-prone, the effects we observe are consistent with an increase of apparent contrast by attention.
AB - Whether attention modulates the appearance of stimulus features is debated. Whereas many previous studies using a comparative judgment have found evidence for such an effect, two recent studies using an equality judgment have not. Critically, these studies have relied on the assumption that the equality paradigm yields bias-free PSE estimates and is as sensitive as the comparative judgment, without testing these assumptions. Anton-Erxleben, Abrams, and Carrasco (2010) compared comparative judgments and equality judgments with and without the manipulation of attention. They demonstrated that the equality paradigm is less sensitive than the comparative judgment and also bias-prone. Furthermore, they reported an effect of attention on the PSE using both paradigms. Schneider (2011) questions the validity of the latter finding, stating that the data in the equality experiment are corrupted because of skew in the response distributions. Notably, this argument supports the original conclusion by Anton-Erxleben et al.: that the equality paradigm is bias-prone. Additionally, the necessary analyses to show that the attention effect observed in Anton-Erxleben et al. was due to skew in the data were not conducted. Here, we provide these analyses and show that although the equality judgment is bias-prone, the effects we observe are consistent with an increase of apparent contrast by attention.
KW - Appearance
KW - Attention
KW - Contrast perception
KW - Psychophysical methods
KW - Spatial vision
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=81555196335&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=81555196335&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1167/11.13.8
DO - 10.1167/11.13.8
M3 - Article
C2 - 22072728
AN - SCOPUS:81555196335
SN - 1534-7362
VL - 11
JO - Journal of vision
JF - Journal of vision
IS - 13
M1 - 8
ER -