IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0012792.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Misspecifications of Stimulus Presentation Durations in Experimental Psychology: A Systematic Review of the Psychophysics Literature

Author

Listed:
  • Tobias Elze

Abstract

Background: In visual psychophysics, precise display timing, particularly for brief stimulus presentations, is often required. The aim of this study was to systematically review the commonly applied methods for the computation of stimulus durations in psychophysical experiments and to contrast them with the true luminance signals of stimuli on computer displays. Methodology/Principal Findings: In a first step, we systematically scanned the citation index Web of Science for studies with experiments with stimulus presentations for brief durations. Articles which appeared between 2003 and 2009 in three different journals were taken into account if they contained experiments with stimuli presented for less than 50 milliseconds. The 79 articles that matched these criteria were reviewed for their method of calculating stimulus durations. For those 75 studies where the method was either given or could be inferred, stimulus durations were calculated by the sum of frames (SOF) method. In a second step, we describe the luminance signal properties of the two monitor technologies which were used in the reviewed studies, namely cathode ray tube (CRT) and liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors. We show that SOF is inappropriate for brief stimulus presentations on both of these technologies. In extreme cases, SOF specifications and true stimulus durations are even unrelated. Furthermore, the luminance signals of the two monitor technologies are so fundamentally different that the duration of briefly presented stimuli cannot be calculated by a single method for both technologies. Statistics over stimulus durations given in the reviewed studies are discussed with respect to different duration calculation methods. Conclusions/Significance: The SOF method for duration specification which was clearly dominating in the reviewed studies leads to serious misspecifications particularly for brief stimulus presentations. We strongly discourage its use for brief stimulus presentations on CRT and LCD monitors.

Suggested Citation

  • Tobias Elze, 2010. "Misspecifications of Stimulus Presentation Durations in Experimental Psychology: A Systematic Review of the Psychophysics Literature," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(9), pages 1-7, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0012792
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0012792
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0012792
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0012792&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0012792?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0012792. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.