Criterion Control in Signal Detection

Observers were required to detect a signal that underwent a decrease in probability of occurrence throughout a session. Contrary to what might be expected with the "ideal observer" hypothesis of signal detection theory, changes in the proportions of hits and false alarms, as well as in their associated response times and confidence ratings, indicated that observers reacted to the decrease in signal probability by adopting a less stringent criterion for making signal responses. The empirical pattern of changes in response proportions is compared with that predicted by a response stabilization process. An adaptation----level hypothesis is then proposed, in which the cutoff adopted by the observer is equal to the cumulatively based mean of all the sensory intensities experienced by the observer up to that trial. Such a mechanism for criterion control offers a simple but very general explanation for criterion changes in signal detection.

[1]  Philip L. Smith,et al.  Experimental paradigms emphasising state or process limitations: I effects on speed-accuracy tradeoffs , 1985 .

[2]  A. Baddeley,et al.  Signal probability and vigilance: a reappraisal of the 'signal-rate' effect. , 1969, British journal of psychology.

[3]  Don McNicol,et al.  A Primer of Signal Detection Theory , 1976 .

[4]  R. Pike.  Response latency models for signal detection. , 1973, Psychological review.

[5]  John H. Wright,et al.  Reaction time as a function of the intensity and probability of occurrence of vibrotactile signals , 1969 .

[6]  D. Vickers,et al.  Adaptation to Decreasing Signal Probability , 1977 .

[7]  John A. Swets,et al.  Signal Detection Theory Applied to Vigilance , 1977 .

[8]  W. V. Colquhoun.  THE EFFECT OF ‘UNWANTED’ SIGNALS ON PERFORMANCE IN A VIGILANCE TASK , 1961 .

[9]  F. Toates,et al.  Control Theory in Biology and Experimental Psychology , 1981, IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics.

[10]  H J Jerison,et al.  The Elicited Observing Rate and Decision Processes in Vigilance1 , 1965, Human factors.

[11]  L. Festinger,et al.  A quantitative theory of decision , 1943 .

[12]  D. Vickers.  Decision processes in visual perception , 1979 .

[13]  R. R. Mackie,et al.  Vigilance: Theory, Operational Performance, and Physiological Correlates , 1978 .

[14]  James P. Egan,et al.  Signal detection theory and ROC analysis , 1975 .

[15]  W P Colquhoun,et al.  The effect of 'unwanted' signals on performance in a vigilance task: a reply to Jerison. , 1966, Ergonomics.

[16]  P. Bakan,et al.  Extraversion-introversion and improvement in an auditory vigilance task. , 1959, British journal of psychology.

[17]  R C Williges,et al.  Within-session criterion changes compared to an ideal observer criterion in a visual monitoring task. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[18]  A. Baddeley,et al.  Influence of signal probability during pretraining on vigilance decrement. , 1967, Journal of experimental psychology.

[19]  R. McLaughlin,et al.  Vigilance Performance Related to Extraversion—Introversion and Caffeine , 1972 .

[20]  R C Williges.  The Role of Payoffs and Signal Ratios in Criterion Changes during a Monitoring Task , 1971, Human factors.

[21]  R C Williges.  Manipulating the Response Criterion in Visual Monitoring , 1973, Human factors.

[22]  Philip L. Smith,et al.  Experimental paradigms emphasising state or process limitations: II effects on confidence , 1985 .

[23]  J. Swets,et al.  A decision-making theory of visual detection. , 1954, Psychological review.

[24]  A. Baddeley,et al.  ROLE OF PRETEST EXPECTANCY IN VIGILANCE DECREMENT. , 1964, Journal of experimental psychology.

[25]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .