信号检测模型中的决策准则不是基于目标似然比的。

IF 3.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL Journal of Experimental Psychology: General Pub Date : 2023-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-06-01 DOI:10.1037/xge0001438
Xiao Hu, Chunliang Yang, Liang Luo
{"title":"信号检测模型中的决策准则不是基于目标似然比的。","authors":"Xiao Hu,&nbsp;Chunliang Yang,&nbsp;Liang Luo","doi":"10.1037/xge0001438","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>How people set decision criteria in signal detection model is an important research question. The likelihood ratio (LR) theory, which is one of the most influential theories about criteria setting, typically assumes that (a) decisions are based on the objective LR of the signal and noise distributions, and (b) LR criteria do not change across tasks with various difficulty levels. However, it is often questioned whether people are really able to know the exact shape of signal and noise distributions, and compute the objective LR accordingly. Here we suggest whether decision criteria are set based on objective LR can be tested in two-condition experiments with different difficulty levels across conditions. We then asked participants in three empirical experiments to perform two-condition perceptual or memory tasks, and give their answer using confidence rating scale. Results revealed that the two assumptions of LR theory contradicted with each other: if we assumed decision criteria were based on objective LR, then the estimated LR criteria differed across difficulty levels, and fanned out as task difficulty decreased. We suggest people might inaccurately estimate the LR in signal detection tasks, and several possible explanations for the distortion of LR are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":15698,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","volume":" ","pages":"3037-3057"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Decision criteria in signal detection model are not based on the objective likelihood ratio.\",\"authors\":\"Xiao Hu,&nbsp;Chunliang Yang,&nbsp;Liang Luo\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/xge0001438\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>How people set decision criteria in signal detection model is an important research question. The likelihood ratio (LR) theory, which is one of the most influential theories about criteria setting, typically assumes that (a) decisions are based on the objective LR of the signal and noise distributions, and (b) LR criteria do not change across tasks with various difficulty levels. However, it is often questioned whether people are really able to know the exact shape of signal and noise distributions, and compute the objective LR accordingly. Here we suggest whether decision criteria are set based on objective LR can be tested in two-condition experiments with different difficulty levels across conditions. We then asked participants in three empirical experiments to perform two-condition perceptual or memory tasks, and give their answer using confidence rating scale. Results revealed that the two assumptions of LR theory contradicted with each other: if we assumed decision criteria were based on objective LR, then the estimated LR criteria differed across difficulty levels, and fanned out as task difficulty decreased. We suggest people might inaccurately estimate the LR in signal detection tasks, and several possible explanations for the distortion of LR are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15698,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"3037-3057\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-11-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001438\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/6/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Experimental Psychology: General","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001438","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/6/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

人们如何在信号检测模型中设置决策准则是一个重要的研究问题。似然比(LR)理论是关于标准设置的最具影响力的理论之一,它通常假设(a)决策基于信号和噪声分布的目标LR,以及(b)LR标准在具有不同难度级别的任务之间不会改变。然而,人们经常质疑人们是否真的能够知道信号和噪声分布的确切形状,并相应地计算目标LR。在这里,我们建议是否可以在不同条件下不同难度水平的两个条件实验中测试基于目标LR的决策标准。然后,我们要求三个经验实验的参与者执行两种条件的感知或记忆任务,并使用置信度评定量表给出他们的答案。结果表明,LR理论的两个假设相互矛盾:如果我们假设决策标准是基于客观LR的,那么估计的LR标准在不同的难度水平上是不同的,并且随着任务难度的降低而呈扇形分布。我们认为人们在信号检测任务中可能会不准确地估计LR,并讨论了LR失真的几种可能解释。(PsycInfo数据库记录(c)2023 APA,保留所有权利)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Decision criteria in signal detection model are not based on the objective likelihood ratio.

How people set decision criteria in signal detection model is an important research question. The likelihood ratio (LR) theory, which is one of the most influential theories about criteria setting, typically assumes that (a) decisions are based on the objective LR of the signal and noise distributions, and (b) LR criteria do not change across tasks with various difficulty levels. However, it is often questioned whether people are really able to know the exact shape of signal and noise distributions, and compute the objective LR accordingly. Here we suggest whether decision criteria are set based on objective LR can be tested in two-condition experiments with different difficulty levels across conditions. We then asked participants in three empirical experiments to perform two-condition perceptual or memory tasks, and give their answer using confidence rating scale. Results revealed that the two assumptions of LR theory contradicted with each other: if we assumed decision criteria were based on objective LR, then the estimated LR criteria differed across difficulty levels, and fanned out as task difficulty decreased. We suggest people might inaccurately estimate the LR in signal detection tasks, and several possible explanations for the distortion of LR are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
4.90%
发文量
300
期刊介绍: The Journal of Experimental Psychology: General publishes articles describing empirical work that bridges the traditional interests of two or more communities of psychology. The work may touch on issues dealt with in JEP: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, JEP: Human Perception and Performance, JEP: Animal Behavior Processes, or JEP: Applied, but may also concern issues in other subdisciplines of psychology, including social processes, developmental processes, psychopathology, neuroscience, or computational modeling. Articles in JEP: General may be longer than the usual journal publication if necessary, but shorter articles that bridge subdisciplines will also be considered.
期刊最新文献
Bypassing versus correcting misinformation: Efficacy and fundamental processes. Risky hybrid foraging: The impact of risk, reward value, and prevalence on foraging behavior in hybrid visual search. Shortcuts to insincerity: Texting abbreviations seem insincere and not worth answering. Confidence regulates feedback processing during human probabilistic learning. Does affective processing require awareness? On the use of the Perceptual Awareness Scale in response priming research.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1