2020
DOI: 10.48550/arxiv.2002.01547
|View full text |Cite
Preprint
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Accelerating Psychometric Screening Tests With Bayesian Active Differential Selection

Abstract: Classical methods for psychometric function estimation either require excessive measurements or produce only a low-resolution approximation of the target psychometric function. In this paper, we propose a novel solution for rapid screening for a change in the psychometric function estimation of a given patient. We use Bayesian active model selection to perform an automated pure-tone audiogram test with the goal of quickly finding if the current audiogram will be different from a previous audiogram. We validate… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 9 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The MLCSF inductive bias was not as well matched to canonical phenotypes, leading to slower convergence than quickCSF, but its flexibility allowed it to achieve approximately the same average accuracy on both experiments. Many other options exist to tune the MLCSF inductive bias, including other implementations of CSF priors, mutually conjoint estimation of multiple CSF curves ( Barbour et al, 2018 ; Heisey, Buchbinder, & Barbour, 2018 ), multiplexed detection tasks ( Gardner, Song, Cunningham, Barbour, & Weinberger, 2015 ), and perhaps the most efficient of all, Bayesian active model selection from among predefined phenotypes ( Gardner, Malkomes, et al, 2015 ; Larsen, Malkomes, & Barbour, 2020 ; Larsen, Malkomes, & Barbour, 2021 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The MLCSF inductive bias was not as well matched to canonical phenotypes, leading to slower convergence than quickCSF, but its flexibility allowed it to achieve approximately the same average accuracy on both experiments. Many other options exist to tune the MLCSF inductive bias, including other implementations of CSF priors, mutually conjoint estimation of multiple CSF curves ( Barbour et al, 2018 ; Heisey, Buchbinder, & Barbour, 2018 ), multiplexed detection tasks ( Gardner, Song, Cunningham, Barbour, & Weinberger, 2015 ), and perhaps the most efficient of all, Bayesian active model selection from among predefined phenotypes ( Gardner, Malkomes, et al, 2015 ; Larsen, Malkomes, & Barbour, 2020 ; Larsen, Malkomes, & Barbour, 2021 ).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%