ArticleBehavior research methods2026
A novel bias-free approach for robust perceptual threshold estimation.
Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Prior Expectations Bias Confidence Judgments Through Parietal Alpha-Band Modulation.Advanced science (Weinheim, Baden-Wurttemberg, Germany) · 2026Article
- Predictive Inference Alterations in Psychosis Proneness Show Task-Dependent Signatures.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Perceptual threshold estimation stands as a fundamental variable manipulation in psychology and neuroscience, fine-tuning sensory input intensity to align perceptual precision across individuals. Current methods, such as constant stimuli and staircase procedures, inaccurately assume that perceptual thresholds are influenced solely by sensitivity, overlooking the role of response biases and consequently leading to unreliable estimates. The underlying reason is that classical methods traditionally focus on hit rates-the correct detection of stimuli-while neglecting false alarms, where participants incorrectly report a stimulus when none is present. According to signal detection theory, hit rates can arise from genuine sensitivity or a liberal response criterion, making it crucial to account for both measures. To overcome this confound, we developed bias-free versions of these methods by including target-absent trials to factor in decisional bias during threshold evaluation. Across 74 participants, we robustly demonstrated that widely used classical procedures overestimate perceptual thresholds due to uncontrolled interindividual variability in participant criterion. Conversely, the bias-free staircase procedure achieved reliable sensitivity thresholds, effectively mitigating the influence of decisional bias. We strongly advocate for the adoption of this straightforward, bias-free approach. Its effectiveness, simplicity, and quick execution make it highly feasible for widespread use in enhancing the reliability of threshold estimation and reducing variability in future scientific investigations across various fields.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.