It's the type of DV that matters (was Re: Measuring Input-Output Characteristics)

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2014.03.20.1040)]

···

I thought I would move this to a different thread because the input-output thread is getting a bit crowded.

Bruce Abbott (2014.03.20.0900 EDT)

RM: I agree that we can learn about the input functions that produce perceptions whether or not those perceptions are currently under control. But I must have missed your illustration of how this is done in psychophysical experiments…

BA: I guess you did miss it, so here it is again.

This procedure will do the job:

· Present tone at a given frequency and intensity

· Have participant raise finger if tone is detected, lower it if not

· Change to a new frequency and/or intensity

· Repeat

The participant controls a relationship between perceiving/not perceiving the tone and raising/not raising the finger.

The participant has no control over the presentation of the tone – onset time, duration, frequency and intensity are controlled by the audiologist.

Thus, the variable that the audiologist assesses (intensity threshold) is not the variable that the participant controls.

Presenting/not presenting the tone does potentially disturb the participant’s relationship perception, but so what? That’s a different perception from the one the audiologist is assessing. Clearly, in this case the behavioral illusion is irrelevant to the audiologist’s analysis.

RM: I agree.The behavioral illusion is irrelevant in this case but it’s not for the reason you give. Remember that the behavioral illusion occurs when an independent variable is a disturbance to a controlled variable and the dependent variable is the output that compensates for that disturbance. In the case of threshold measurement the independent variable is stimulus intensity and that is apparently a disturbance to the perception of the relationship between the perception of stimulus presence and the output that compensates for that disturbance, which is finger position in your example. But the dependent variable in this approach to threshold measurement is not finger position. Rather, it’s a measure of how well the person controls the relationship between stimulus intensity and finger position. This measure of control is either presented in terms of the proportion correct responses over trials (positive responses when the stimulus was actually present) or the more sophisticated d’ measure, which takes false alarms (positive responses when no stimulus was present) into account.

RM: The situation is equivalent to that in the dark adaptation data you presented, which showed light intensity threshold (dependent variable) as a function of time in the dark (independent variable). There is no behavioral illusion in this case because the dependent variable (light threshold) is a measure of control (how well the subject can correctly report the presence of light), not an measure of system output that compensates for the disturbance to the controlled variable produced by the independent variable.

RM: We used a measure of control similar to percent correct in our study of the hierarchical relationship between three different types of perception: configuration, transition and sequence. The measure of control was the proportion of the total trial time that the controlled variable was kept in the reference state (under control). Here’s a picture of the main results:

RM: The independent variable is the rate at which the controlled variable was presented (animation rate) and the dependent variable was the “time on target” measure of control. The different lines are the results for the different kinds of controlled perception: top is configuration, middle is transition and bottom is sequence. There is no behavioral illusion here because the dependent variable is not an output that opposes the effects of the independent variable.

RM: As I said in a previous post, the behavioral illusion is a problem only when the independent variable is a disturbance to a controlled variable and the dependent variable is an output that compensates for that disturbance. I think this is the case in a great deal of psychological research. But it’s certainly not true of all psychological research.

RM: I think Bill’s point in noting the possible existence of the behavioral illusion in in the 1978 Psych Review paper was to call attention to the fact that what is important about the behavior of organisms – what we need to understand about the behavior of organisms – is not how inputs are related to outputs but what kinds of perceptual variables organisms control (as I described in my post about a research program based on PCT). Perhaps Bill was thinking that the behavioral illusion would “scare” psychological researchers away from input-output oriented research toward research oriented toward testing for controlled variables. Of course, it seems to have had just the opposite effect. The description of the behavioral illusion was apparently an enormous disturbance to the perceptions (of how to go about doing research) controlled by psychologists and, being very skilled control systems, these researchers have very successfully defended these perceptions against this disturbance. Bill obviously noticed this because he seemed to play down the behavioral illusion after publication of the 1978 Psych Review paper.

RM: So, yes, there is research in the psychological research literature that can be absorbed usefully into the PCT research program that Bill described in the “Cybernetic Model for Research in Human Development” paper in LCS I (pp. 167-219). We know that people can control intensities (threshold studies), transitions (apparent motion studies), sequences (sequence control studies), etc. Indeed, there is probably a lot of useful stuff in the research literature in the field of perception. Maybe it would be useful to document what we know from that literature about the different kinds of perceptions that people can control. But looking to the future, I would still suggest that research be oriented toward expanding this list of controlled variables using methods that are specifically aimed at determining what kinds of perceptions organisms can and do control.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair

[wmansell]

Thank you Rick, a neat summary! There is a potential paper there that summarises the different kinds of existing research from this perspective and thereby makes it clearer which studies have some information that might be useful regarding testing PCT and why, and which are misleading or easily misinterpreted.
Warren

···

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.03.20.1040)]

–
Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Psychology
Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist
School of Psychological Sciences

Coupland I
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT using Method of Levels is available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

I thought I would move this to a different thread because the input-output thread is getting a bit crowded.

Bruce Abbott (2014.03.20.0900 EDT)

RM: I agree that we can learn about the input functions that produce perceptions whether or not those perceptions are currently under control. But I must have missed your illustration of how this is done in psychophysical experiments…

BA: I guess you did miss it, so here it is again.

This procedure will do the job:

· Present tone at a given frequency and intensity

· Have participant raise finger if tone is detected, lower it if not

· Change to a new frequency and/or intensity

· Repeat

The participant controls a relationship between perceiving/not perceiving the tone and raising/not raising the finger.

The participant has no control over the presentation of the tone – onset time, duration, frequency and intensity are controlled by the audiologist.

Thus, the variable that the audiologist assesses (intensity threshold) is not the variable that the participant controls.

Presenting/not presenting the tone does potentially disturb the participant’s relationship perception, but so what? That’s a different perception from the one the audiologist is assessing. Clearly, in this case the behavioral illusion is irrelevant to the audiologist’s analysis.

RM: I agree.The behavioral illusion is irrelevant in this case but it’s not for the reason you give. Remember that the behavioral illusion occurs when an independent variable is a disturbance to a controlled variable and the dependent variable is the output that compensates for that disturbance. In the case of threshold measurement the independent variable is stimulus intensity and that is apparently a disturbance to the perception of the relationship between the perception of stimulus presence and the output that compensates for that disturbance, which is finger position in your example. But the dependent variable in this approach to threshold measurement is not finger position. Rather, it’s a measure of how well the person controls the relationship between stimulus intensity and finger position. This measure of control is either presented in terms of the proportion correct responses over trials (positive responses when the stimulus was actually present) or the more sophisticated d’ measure, which takes false alarms (positive responses when no stimulus was present) into account.

RM: The situation is equivalent to that in the dark adaptation data you presented, which showed light intensity threshold (dependent variable) as a function of time in the dark (independent variable). There is no behavioral illusion in this case because the dependent variable (light threshold) is a measure of control (how well the subject can correctly report the presence of light), not an measure of system output that compensates for the disturbance to the controlled variable produced by the independent variable.

RM: We used a measure of control similar to percent correct in our study of the hierarchical relationship between three different types of perception: configuration, transition and sequence. The measure of control was the proportion of the total trial time that the controlled variable was kept in the reference state (under control). Here’s a picture of the main results:

RM: The independent variable is the rate at which the controlled variable was presented (animation rate) and the dependent variable was the “time on target” measure of control. The different lines are the results for the different kinds of controlled perception: top is configuration, middle is transition and bottom is sequence. There is no behavioral illusion here because the dependent variable is not an output that opposes the effects of the independent variable.

RM: As I said in a previous post, the behavioral illusion is a problem only when the independent variable is a disturbance to a controlled variable and the dependent variable is an output that compensates for that disturbance. I think this is the case in a great deal of psychological research. But it’s certainly not true of all psychological research.

RM: I think Bill’s point in noting the possible existence of the behavioral illusion in in the 1978 Psych Review paper was to call attention to the fact that what is important about the behavior of organisms – what we need to understand about the behavior of organisms – is not how inputs are related to outputs but what kinds of perceptual variables organisms control (as I described in my post about a research program based on PCT). Perhaps Bill was thinking that the behavioral illusion would “scare” psychological researchers away from input-output oriented research toward research oriented toward testing for controlled variables. Of course, it seems to have had just the opposite effect. The description of the behavioral illusion was apparently an enormous disturbance to the perceptions (of how to go about doing research) controlled by psychologists and, being very skilled control systems, these researchers have very successfully defended these perceptions against this disturbance. Bill obviously noticed this because he seemed to play down the behavioral illusion after publication of the 1978 Psych Review paper.

RM: So, yes, there is research in the psychological research literature that can be absorbed usefully into the PCT research program that Bill described in the “Cybernetic Model for Research in Human Development” paper in LCS I (pp. 167-219). We know that people can control intensities (threshold studies), transitions (apparent motion studies), sequences (sequence control studies), etc. Indeed, there is probably a lot of useful stuff in the research literature in the field of perception. Maybe it would be useful to document what we know from that literature about the different kinds of perceptions that people can control. But looking to the future, I would still suggest that research be oriented toward expanding this list of controlled variables using methods that are specifically aimed at determining what kinds of perceptions organisms can and do control.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair

–

[MartinT]

[Martin Taylor 2014.03.21.10.03]

[From Rick Marken (2014.03.20.1040)]

Yes. Lots of different threads under that heading. I haven't been

reading Rick’s messages for the last few days, but Warren quoted
this one, so I did read it, and I agree with pretty well all of it
except to points noted below.

It seems to me that this IS the reason Bruce gives.

I don't see evidence of this, and I still don't agree that the

objective of PCT research is to find out what variables people
control. I think it is to find out how people and other organisms
function. Finding out what kinds of variables people control is a
small part of this endeavour.

···

I thought I would move this to a different thread because the
input-output thread is getting a bit crowded.

                 Bruce

Abbott (2014.03.20.0900 EDT)

                        RM: I agree that we can learn about the

input functions that produce perceptions
whether or not those perceptions are
currently under control. But I must have
missed your illustration of how this is done
in psychophysical experiments…

                BA:

I guess you did miss it, so here it is again.

                This

procedure will do the job:

· Present tone at a given
frequency and intensity

· Have participant raise
finger if tone is detected, lower it if not

· Change to a new
frequency and/or intensity

· Repeat

                The

participant controls a relationship between
perceiving/not perceiving the tone and raising/not
raising the finger.

                The

participant has no control over the presentation of
the tone – onset time, duration, frequency and
intensity are controlled by the audiologist.

                Thus,

the variable that the audiologist assesses
(intensity threshold) is not the variable
that the participant controls.

                Presenting/not

presenting the tone does potentially disturb the
participant’s relationship perception, but so what?
That’s a different perception from the one the
audiologist is assessing. Clearly, in this case the
behavioral illusion is irrelevant to the
audiologist’s analysis.

          RM: I agree.The behavioral illusion is irrelevant in

this case but it’s not for the reason you give. Remember
that the behavioral illusion occurs when an independent
variable is a disturbance to a controlled variable and the
dependent variable is the output that compensates for that
disturbance. In the case of threshold measurement the
independent variable is stimulus intensity and that is
apparently a disturbance to the perception of the
relationship between the perception of stimulus presence
and the output that compensates for that disturbance,
which is finger position in your example. But the
dependent variable in this approach to threshold
measurement is not finger position. Rather, it’s a measure
of how well the person controls the relationship between
stimulus intensity and finger position. This measure of
control is either presented in terms of the proportion
correct responses over trials (positive responses when the
stimulus was actually present) or the more sophisticated
d’ measure, which takes false alarms (positive responses
when no stimulus was present) into account.

          RM: The situation is equivalent to that in the dark

adaptation data you presented, which showed light
intensity threshold (dependent variable) as a function of
time in the dark (independent variable). There is no
behavioral illusion in this case because the dependent
variable (light threshold) is a measure of control (how
well the subject can correctly report the presence of
light), not an measure of system output that compensates
for the disturbance to the controlled variable produced by
the independent variable.

          RM: We used a measure of control similar to percent

correct in our study of the hierarchical relationship
between three different types of perception:
configuration, transition and sequence. The measure of
control was the proportion of the total trial time that
the controlled variable was kept in the reference state
(under control). Here’s a picture of the main results:

          RM: The independent variable is the rate at which the

controlled variable was presented (animation rate) and the
dependent variable was the “time on target” measure of
control. The different lines are the results for the
different kinds of controlled perception: top is
configuration, middle is transition and bottom is
sequence. There is no behavioral illusion here because the
dependent variable is not an output that opposes the
effects of the independent variable.

          RM: As I said in a previous post, the behavioral

illusion is a problem only when the independent variable
is a disturbance to a controlled variable and the
dependent variable is an output that compensates for that
disturbance. I think this is the case in a great deal of
psychological research. But it’s certainly not true of all
psychological research.

          RM:  I think Bill's point in noting the possible

existence of the behavioral illusion in in the 1978 Psych
Review paper was to call attention to the fact that what
is important about the behavior of organisms – what we
need to understand about the behavior of organisms – is
not how inputs are related to outputs but what kinds of
perceptual variables organisms control (as I described in
my post about a research program based on PCT). Perhaps
Bill was thinking that the behavioral illusion would
“scare” psychological researchers away from input-output
oriented research toward research oriented toward testing
for controlled variables. Of course, it seems to have had
just the opposite effect. The description of the
behavioral illusion was apparently an enormous disturbance
to the perceptions (of how to go about doing research)
controlled by psychologists and, being very skilled
control systems, these researchers have very successfully
defended these perceptions against this disturbance. Bill
obviously noticed this because he seemed to play down the
behavioral illusion after publication of the 1978 Psych
Review paper.

          RM: So, yes, there is research in the psychological

research literature that can be absorbed usefully into the
PCT research program that Bill described in the “Cybernetic
Model for Research in Human Development” paper in LCS I
(pp. 167-219). We know that people can control
intensities (threshold studies), transitions (apparent
motion studies), sequences (sequence control studies),
etc. Indeed, there is probably a lot of useful stuff in
the research literature in the field of perception.
Maybe it would be useful to document what we know from
that literature about the different kinds of perceptions
that people can control. But looking to the future, I
would still suggest that research be oriented toward
expanding this list of controlled variables using
methods that are specifically aimed at determining what
kinds of perceptions organisms can and do control.

Best

Rick

–
Richard S. Marken PhD

        [www.mindreadings.com](http://www.mindreadings.com)

It is difficult to get a man to understand something,
when his salary depends upon his not understanding
it. – Upton Sinclair

[rsmarken]

[From Rick Marken (2014.03.21.1140)]

···

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Thank you Rick, a neat summary! There is a potential paper there that summarises the different kinds of existing research from this perspective and thereby makes it clearer which studies have some information that might be useful regarding testing PCT and why, and which are misleading or easily misinterpreted.

RM: I agree there there is a great paper here and I think you and/or some of your students should write it. What I see is a paper citing existing research that is relevant to identifying the types of variables people (and other organisms) can and do control. A good stating point for such a project (I would humbly suggest) is my “Hierarchical Behavior of Perception” paper in More Mind Readings (pp. 85-112). Particularly the section on “Levels of Perception” where I refer to several research studies relevant to the types of perceptions people control. The articles I site are relevant to the time scales for perceiving different types of perceptions. But the paper I’m thinking of would look at all kinds of studies – not just time scale related studies but all studies where the dependent variable is a measure of control of some type of variable, like the threshold and, particular, the difference threshold studies of intensity perception.

I would organizing the results of this effort into a table of the types of variables existing studies show can be controlled. The table might look a bit like Table 2, p. 206 in LCS I, but with documentation from the existing research literature showing that such variables can be controlled. The hierarchical arrangement of that table could be used as a preliminary organizational scheme, with blank cells (there should be a lot of them at the higher levels) showing where research is needed and the hierarchical relationships proposed still to be tested (using nested reaction time methods or something like that).

This would be a huge project but just starting it would be a big step toward developing a framework for a real research program based on PCT; and it would have the nice feature of using, to the extent possible, the existing research in “conventional” psychology. I, of course, would be very happy to consult on this project!!

Best regards

Rick

Warren

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.03.20.1040)]

–
Dr Warren Mansell
Reader in Psychology
Cognitive Behavioural Therapist & Chartered Clinical Psychologist
School of Psychological Sciences

Coupland I
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester M13 9PL
Email: warren.mansell@manchester.ac.uk

Tel: +44 (0) 161 275 8589

Website: http://www.psych-sci.manchester.ac.uk/staff/131406

See teamstrial.net for further information on our trial of CBT for Bipolar Disorders in NW England

The highly acclaimed therapy manual on A Transdiagnostic Approach to CBT using Method of Levels is available now.

Check www.pctweb.org for further information on Perceptual Control Theory

I thought I would move this to a different thread because the input-output thread is getting a bit crowded.

Bruce Abbott (2014.03.20.0900 EDT)

RM: I agree that we can learn about the input functions that produce perceptions whether or not those perceptions are currently under control. But I must have missed your illustration of how this is done in psychophysical experiments…

BA: I guess you did miss it, so here it is again.

This procedure will do the job:

· Present tone at a given frequency and intensity

· Have participant raise finger if tone is detected, lower it if not

· Change to a new frequency and/or intensity

· Repeat

The participant controls a relationship between perceiving/not perceiving the tone and raising/not raising the finger.

The participant has no control over the presentation of the tone – onset time, duration, frequency and intensity are controlled by the audiologist.

Thus, the variable that the audiologist assesses (intensity threshold) is not the variable that the participant controls.

Presenting/not presenting the tone does potentially disturb the participant’s relationship perception, but so what? That’s a different perception from the one the audiologist is assessing. Clearly, in this case the behavioral illusion is irrelevant to the audiologist’s analysis.

RM: I agree.The behavioral illusion is irrelevant in this case but it’s not for the reason you give. Remember that the behavioral illusion occurs when an independent variable is a disturbance to a controlled variable and the dependent variable is the output that compensates for that disturbance. In the case of threshold measurement the independent variable is stimulus intensity and that is apparently a disturbance to the perception of the relationship between the perception of stimulus presence and the output that compensates for that disturbance, which is finger position in your example. But the dependent variable in this approach to threshold measurement is not finger position. Rather, it’s a measure of how well the person controls the relationship between stimulus intensity and finger position. This measure of control is either presented in terms of the proportion correct responses over trials (positive responses when the stimulus was actually present) or the more sophisticated d’ measure, which takes false alarms (positive responses when no stimulus was present) into account.

RM: The situation is equivalent to that in the dark adaptation data you presented, which showed light intensity threshold (dependent variable) as a function of time in the dark (independent variable). There is no behavioral illusion in this case because the dependent variable (light threshold) is a measure of control (how well the subject can correctly report the presence of light), not an measure of system output that compensates for the disturbance to the controlled variable produced by the independent variable.

RM: We used a measure of control similar to percent correct in our study of the hierarchical relationship between three different types of perception: configuration, transition and sequence. The measure of control was the proportion of the total trial time that the controlled variable was kept in the reference state (under control). Here’s a picture of the main results:

RM: The independent variable is the rate at which the controlled variable was presented (animation rate) and the dependent variable was the “time on target” measure of control. The different lines are the results for the different kinds of controlled perception: top is configuration, middle is transition and bottom is sequence. There is no behavioral illusion here because the dependent variable is not an output that opposes the effects of the independent variable.

RM: As I said in a previous post, the behavioral illusion is a problem only when the independent variable is a disturbance to a controlled variable and the dependent variable is an output that compensates for that disturbance. I think this is the case in a great deal of psychological research. But it’s certainly not true of all psychological research.

RM: I think Bill’s point in noting the possible existence of the behavioral illusion in in the 1978 Psych Review paper was to call attention to the fact that what is important about the behavior of organisms – what we need to understand about the behavior of organisms – is not how inputs are related to outputs but what kinds of perceptual variables organisms control (as I described in my post about a research program based on PCT). Perhaps Bill was thinking that the behavioral illusion would “scare” psychological researchers away from input-output oriented research toward research oriented toward testing for controlled variables. Of course, it seems to have had just the opposite effect. The description of the behavioral illusion was apparently an enormous disturbance to the perceptions (of how to go about doing research) controlled by psychologists and, being very skilled control systems, these researchers have very successfully defended these perceptions against this disturbance. Bill obviously noticed this because he seemed to play down the behavioral illusion after publication of the 1978 Psych Review paper.

RM: So, yes, there is research in the psychological research literature that can be absorbed usefully into the PCT research program that Bill described in the “Cybernetic Model for Research in Human Development” paper in LCS I (pp. 167-219). We know that people can control intensities (threshold studies), transitions (apparent motion studies), sequences (sequence control studies), etc. Indeed, there is probably a lot of useful stuff in the research literature in the field of perception. Maybe it would be useful to document what we know from that literature about the different kinds of perceptions that people can control. But looking to the future, I would still suggest that research be oriented toward expanding this list of controlled variables using methods that are specifically aimed at determining what kinds of perceptions organisms can and do control.

Best

Rick

Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair

–

[wmansell]

Great Rick, let’s do it as soon as I find the right student for the job!

Warren

···

On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 1:43 AM, Warren Mansell wmansell@gmail.com wrote:

Thank you Rick, a neat summary! There is a potential paper there that summarises the different kinds of existing research from this perspective and thereby makes it clearer which studies have some information that might be useful regarding testing PCT and why, and which are misleading or easily misinterpreted.

RM: I agree there there is a great paper here and I think you and/or some of your students should write it. What I see is a paper citing existing research that is relevant to identifying the types of variables people (and other organisms) can and do control. A good stating point for such a project (I would humbly suggest) is my “Hierarchical Behavior of Perception” paper in More Mind Readings (pp. 85-112). Particularly the section on “Levels of Perception” where I refer to several research studies relevant to the types of perceptions people control. The articles I site are relevant to the time scales for perceiving different types of perceptions. But the paper I’m thinking of would look at all kinds of studies – not just time scale related studies but all studies where the dependent variable is a measure of control of some type of variable, like the threshold and, particular, the difference threshold studies of intensity perception.

I would organizing the results of this effort into a table of the types of variables existing studies show can be controlled. The table might look a bit like Table 2, p. 206 in LCS I, but with documentation from the existing research literature showing that such variables can be controlled. The hierarchical arrangement of that table could be used as a preliminary organizational scheme, with blank cells (there should be a lot of them at the higher levels) showing where research is needed and the hierarchical relationships proposed still to be tested (using nested reaction time methods or something like that).

This would be a huge project but just starting it would be a big step toward developing a framework for a real research program based on PCT; and it would have the nice feature of using, to the extent possible, the existing research in “conventional” psychology. I, of course, would be very happy to consult on this project!!

Best regards

Rick

Warren

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 5:39 PM, Richard Marken rsmarken@gmail.com wrote:

[From Rick Marken (2014.03.20.1040)]

I thought I would move this to a different thread because the input-output thread is getting a bit crowded.

Bruce Abbott (2014.03.20.0900 EDT)

RM: I agree that we can learn about the input functions that produce perceptions whether or not those perceptions are currently under control. But I must have missed your illustration of how this is done in psychophysical experiments…

BA: I guess you did miss it, so here it is again.

This procedure will do the job:

· Present tone at a given frequency and intensity

· Have participant raise finger if tone is detected, lower it if not

· Change to a new frequency and/or intensity

· Repeat

The participant controls a relationship between perceiving/not perceiving the tone and raising/not raising the finger.

The participant has no control over the presentation of the tone – onset time, duration, frequency and intensity are controlled by the audiologist.

Thus, the variable that the audiologist assesses (intensity threshold) is not the variable that the participant controls.

Presenting/not presenting the tone does potentially disturb the participant’s relationship perception, but so what? That’s a different perception from the one the audiologist is assessing. Clearly, in this case the behavioral illusion is irrelevant to the audiologist’s analysis.

RM: I agree.The behavioral illusion is irrelevant in this case but it’s not for the reason you give. Remember that the behavioral illusion occurs when an independent variable is a disturbance to a controlled variable and the dependent variable is the output that compensates for that disturbance. In the case of threshold measurement the independent variable is stimulus intensity and that is apparently a disturbance to the perception of the relationship between the perception of stimulus presence and the output th

–
Richard S. Marken PhD
www.mindreadings.com
It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it. – Upton Sinclair