title: Equality judgments cannot distinguish between attention effects on appearance and criterion: a reply to Schneider (2011).
abstract: 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.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, New York University, USA.
authors.forename: Katharina
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Anton-Erxleben
authors.forename: Jared
authors.initials: J
authors.lastname: Abrams
authors.forename: Marisa
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Carrasco
mesh_terms: D001288:Attention / Q000502:physiology*; D015350:Contrast Sensitivity / Q000502:physiology*; D003463:Cues; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007600:Judgment / Q000502:physiology*; D008297:Male
references.citation: Vision Res. 2007 Jan;47(2):166-78
references.pmid: 17116314
references.citation: J Vis. 2011 Nov 09;11(13):7
references.pmid: 22072727
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 1982 Jul;48(1):217-37
references.pmid: 7119846
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2009 Dec;16(6):1011-25
references.pmid: 19966250
references.citation: Vision Res. 2006 Nov;46(23):4032-47
references.pmid: 16979690
references.citation: J Vis. 2005 Dec 30;5(11):1055-69
references.pmid: 16441202
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2004 Mar;7(3):308-13
references.pmid: 14966522
references.citation: Neuron. 2002 Jul 18;35(2):365-70
references.pmid: 12160753
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 1988 May;43(5):415-24
references.pmid: 3380632
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2000 Aug;26(4):1401-20
references.pmid: 10946722
references.citation: Exp Brain Res. 1982;46(3):457-61
references.pmid: 7095050
references.citation: Vision Res. 2005 Nov;45(23):2972-85
references.pmid: 15876447
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2004 Mar;7(3):208-9
references.pmid: 14983181
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2006 Oct;9(10):1243-5
references.pmid: 16964254
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2006 Dec;13(6):1091-6
references.pmid: 17484441
references.citation: Vision Res. 2009 Jul;49(14):1825-37
references.pmid: 19393260
references.citation: J Vis. 2008 Aug 01;8(10):2.1-11
references.pmid: 19146344
references.citation: Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010 Apr;72(3):637-50
references.pmid: 20348570
references.citation: J Vis. 2008 Nov 10;8(15):3.1-10
references.pmid: 19146287
references.citation: Nature. 1999 Jun 10;399(6736):575-9
references.pmid: 10376597
references.citation: J Vis. 2007 Aug 23;7(11):5.1-9
references.pmid: 17997660
references.citation: J Vis. 2010 Sep 09;10(11):6
references.pmid: 20884501
references.citation: Neuron. 2000 Jun;26(3):703-14
references.pmid: 10896165
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2009 Mar;20(3):354-62
references.pmid: 19254239
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 1981 Dec;46(6):1244-59
references.pmid: 7320745
references.citation: Annu Rev Neurosci. 2004;27:611-47
references.pmid: 15217345
references.citation: Psychol Sci. 2005 Aug;16(8):644-51
references.pmid: 16102068
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2010 Sep 22;30(38):12701-11
references.pmid: 20861375
references.citation: Nat Neurosci. 2010 Dec;13(12):1554-9
references.pmid: 21057509
references.citation: Nature. 1998 Nov 5;396(6706):72-5
references.pmid: 9817201
references.citation: Trends Cogn Sci. 2004 Oct;8(10):435-7
references.pmid: 15450502
references.citation: J Neurophysiol. 1987 Mar;57(3):773-86
references.pmid: 3559701
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1989 Dec;86(23):9631-5
references.pmid: 2594791
references.citation: Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2008 Apr 22;105(16):6202-7
references.pmid: 18413602
references.citation: Atten Percept Psychophys. 2010 Aug;72(6):1510-21
references.pmid: 20675797
references.citation: Vision Res. 2000;40(10-12):1227-68
references.pmid: 10788638
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2007 Jan 3;27(1):93-7
references.pmid: 17202476
references.citation: Neuron. 2009 Jan 29;61(2):168-85
references.pmid: 19186161
references.citation: J Vis. 2008 Jan 24;8(1):16.1-16
references.pmid: 18318619
references.citation: J Vis. 2006 Aug 18;6(9):955-65
references.pmid: 17083287
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2008 Oct;70(7):1151-64
references.pmid: 18979688
references.citation: Vis Neurosci. 1997 Sep-Oct;14(5):897-919
references.pmid: 9364727
references.citation: Trends Neurosci. 2001 May;24(5):295-300
references.pmid: 11311383
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2007 Aug;69(6):1051-8
references.pmid: 18018987
references.citation: Vision Res. 2011 Jul 1;51(13):1484-525
references.pmid: 21549742