Advertisement

Psychometrika

, Volume 70, Issue 1, pp 203–212 | Cite as

A note on ROC analysis and non-parametric estimate of sensitivity

  • Jun Zhang
  • Shane T. Mueller
Article

Abstract

In the signal detection paradigm, the non-parametric index of sensitivity A′, as first introduced by Pollack and Norman (1964), is a popular alternative to the more traditional d′ measure of sensitivity. Smith (1995) clarified a confusion about the interpretation of A′ in relation to the area beneath proper receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves, and provided a formula (which he called A′′) for this commonly held interpretation. However, he made an error in his calculations. Here, we rectify this error by providing the correct formula (which we call A) and compare the discrepancy that would have resulted. The corresponding measure for bias b is also provided. Since all such calculations apply to “proper” ROC curves with non-decreasing slopes, we also prove, as a separate result, the slope-monotonicity of ROC curves generated by likelihood-ratio criterion.

Keywords

signal detection theory A′ non-parametric estimate of sensitivity likelihood-ratio 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ashby F.G., Townsend J.T. (1986) Varieties of perceptual independence. Psychological Review, 93:154–179CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Balakrishnan J.D. (1998) Some more sensitive measures of sensitivity and response bias. Psychological Methods, 3:68–90CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Balakrishnan J.D. (1999) Decision processes in discrimination: fundamental misrepresentations of signal detection theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25:1189–1206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Donaldson W., Good C. (1996) A’r: An estimate of area under isosensitivity curves. Behavioral Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 28:590–597Google Scholar
  5. Green D.M., Swets J.A. (1964) Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics, New York: John Wiley & SonsGoogle Scholar
  6. Macmillan N.A., Creelman C.D. (1996) Triangles in ROC space: History and theory of “non-parametric” measures of sensitivity and response bias. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 3:164-170Google Scholar
  7. Newsome W.T., Britten K.H., Movshon J.A., Shadlen M. (1989) Single neurons and the perception of visual motion. In D.M-K. Lam, C.D. Gilbert (Eds.) Proceedings of the Retina Research Foundation Symposia, Vol. 2, Neural Mechanisms of Visual Perception, (171–198). Woodlands, TX: Portfolio Publishing.Google Scholar
  8. Peterson W.W., Birdsall T.G., Fox W.C. (1954) The theory of signal detectability. Transactions of the IRE Professional Group on Information Theory, PGIT-4:171–212Google Scholar
  9. Pollack I., Hsieh R. (1969) Sampling variability of the area under ROC curve and ′. Psychological Bulletin,1:161–173Google Scholar
  10. Pollack L., Norman D.A. (1964) Non-parametric analysis of recognition experiments. Psychonomic Science 1:125–126Google Scholar
  11. Smith W.D. (1995) Clarification of sensitivity measure A′. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 39:82–89Google Scholar
  12. Swets J.A., Tanner W.P., Birdsall T.G. (1964). Decision process in perception. Psychological Review 68:301–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Tanner W.P. Jr., Swets J.A. (1954) A decision-making theory of visual detection. Psychological Review 61:401–409PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Zhang J., Riehle A., Requin J. (1997) Locus of a neural process in stimulus-response association tasks. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 41:219–236.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychometric Society 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of MichiganAnn Arbor
  2. 2.University of MichiganAnn Arbor

Personalised recommendations