Human Performance on a Signal Detection Task: Discriminability and Sensitivity to Reinforcement

Everly, Jeffrey J.

doi:10.1007/s40732-015-0159-7

Human Performance on a Signal Detection Task: Discriminability and Sensitivity to Reinforcement

Original Article
Published: 21 January 2016

Volume 66, pages 139–151, (2016)
Cite this article

The Psychological Record Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Jeffrey J. Everly¹

211 Accesses
1 Citation
Explore all metrics

Abstract

Ten human participants worked on a computer-based discrete-trials signal detection task in which stimulus disparity and the ratio of reinforcers for correct responses were manipulated. During each trial, a 12 × 12 stimulus array consisting of an unequal number of randomly arranged circles and squares was presented. Participants responded by indicating whether the stimulus contained more circles or more squares. Two levels of stimulus disparity, high and low, were arranged by changing the numbers of circles and squares in the stimulus. At both levels of disparity, the ratio of reinforcers for correct circle and square responses was varied across 5 different levels ranging from 1:9 to 9:1. Reinforcers were assigned using a controlled reinforcer procedure that held obtained reinforcer ratios close to the programmed ratios. For all participants, discriminability was higher when the stimulus disparity was high but was not affected by changes in the reinforcer ratio. Response bias varied as a function of the reinforcer ratio. Estimates of the sensitivity of bias to changes in the reinforcer ratio varied with changes in disparity; however, the variations were typically small and their direction differed across participants. These findings are consistent with previous human research (Gallagher & Alsop, Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 75(2), 183–203, 2001; Johnstone & Alsop, Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 73, 275–290, 2000; Lie & Alsop, Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93(2), 185-201, 2010) showing that when a controlled reinforcer procedure is used, bias and sensitivity are independent of discriminability.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Deciphering human decision rules in motion discrimination

Article Open access 08 July 2021

Parsimonious estimation of signal detection models from confidence ratings

Article Open access 08 May 2019

Garner interference is not solely driven by stimulus uncertainty

Article 31 May 2016

References

Adamson, C., Foster, M. T., & McEwan, J. S. A. (2000). Delayed matching to sample: The effects of sample-set size on human performance. Behavioural Processes, 49, 149–161.
Article PubMed Google Scholar
Alsop, B., & Davison, M. (1991). Effects of varying stimulus disparity and the reinforcer ratio in concurrent-schedule and signal-detection procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 56(1), 67–80. doi:10.1901/jeab.1991.56-67.
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Alsop, B., & Porritt, M. (2006). Discriminability and sensitivity to reinforcer magnitude in a detection task. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 85(1), 41–56. doi:10.1901/jeab.2006.91-04.
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Baum, W. M. (1974). On two types of deviation from the matching law: Bias and undermatching. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 22(1), 231–242. doi:10.1901/jeab.1974.22-231.
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Davison, M., & McCarthy, D. (1988). The matching law: A research review. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Google Scholar
Davison, M., & Nevin, J. A. (1999). Stimuli, reinforcers, and behavior: An integration. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71(3), 439–482. doi:10.1901/jeab.1999.71-439.
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Davison, M., & Tustin, R. D. (1978). The relation between the generalized matching law and signal-detection theory. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 29(2), 331–336.
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Gallagher, S., & Alsop, B. (2001). Effects of response disparity on stimulus and reinforcer control in human detection tasks. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 75(2), 183–203. doi:10.1901/jeab.2001.75-183.
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Google Scholar
Johnstone, V., & Alsop, B. (1999). Stimulus presentation ratios and the outcomes for correct responses in signal-detection procedures. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 72, 1–20.
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Johnstone, V., & Alsop, B. (2000). Reinforcer control and human signal-detection performance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 73, 275–290. doi:10.1901/jeab.2000.73-275.
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Jones, M. B., & White, K. G. (1992). Sample-stimulus discriminability and sensitivity to reinforcement in delayed matching to sample. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 58, 159–172. doi:10.1901/jeab.1992.58-159.
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Lie, C., & Alsop, B. (2009). Effects of point-loss punishers on human signal-detection performance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 92(1), 17–39. doi:10.1901/jeab.2009.92-17.
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Lie, C., & Alsop, B. (2010). Stimulus disparity and punisher control of human signal-detection performance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 93(2), 185–201. doi:10.1901/jeab.2010.93-185.
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Luce, R. D. (1963). Detection and recognition. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 103–189). New York, NY: Wiley.
Google Scholar
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (2005). Detection theory: A user’s guide (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Google Scholar
McCarthy, D., & Davison, M. (1979). Signal probability, reinforcement, and signal detection. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 32(3), 373–386. doi:10.1901/jeab.1979.32-373.
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
McCarthy, D., & Davison, M. (1980a). Independence of sensitivity to relative reinforcement rate and discriminability in signal detection. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 34(3), 273–284. doi:10.1901/jeab.1980.34-273.
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
McCarthy, D., & Davison, M. (1980b). On the discriminability of stimulus duration. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 33(2), 187–211. doi:10.1901/jeab.1980.33-187.
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
McCarthy, D., & Davison, M. (1981). Towards a behavioral theory of bias in signal detection. Perception & Psychophysics, 29(4), 371–382.
Article Google Scholar
McCarthy, D., & Davison, M. (1984). Isobia and alloiobias functions in animal psychophysics. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 10(3), 390–409.
PubMed Google Scholar
Nevin, J. A., Davison, M., & Shahan, T. A. (2005). A theory of attending and reinforcement in conditional discriminations. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 84(2), 281–303. doi:10.1901/jeab.2005.97-04.
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research: Evaluating experimental data in psychology. Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative.
Google Scholar
Stubbs, D. A., & Pliskoff, S. S. (1969). Concurrent responding with fixed relative rate of reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 12(6), 887–895. doi:10.1901/jeab.1969.12-887.
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
White, K. G. (1985). Characteristics of forgetting functions in delayed matching to sample. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 44(1), 15–34. doi:10.1901/jeab.1985.44-15.
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
White, K. G. (1986). Conjoint control of performance in conditional discriminations by successive and simultaneous stimuli. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 45(2), 161–174. doi:10.1901/jeab.1986.45-161.
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar
White, K. G. (2001). Forgetting functions. Animal Learning & Behavior, 29(3), 193–207.
Article Google Scholar
White, K. G. (2013). Remembering and forgetting. In G. J. Madden, W. V. Dube, T. D. Hackenberg, G. P. Hanley, & K. A. Lattal (Eds.), APA handbook of behavior analysis: Vol. 1. Methods and principles (pp. 411–437). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Chapter Google Scholar
White, K. G., & Wixted, J. T. (1999). Psychophysics of remembering. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 71(1), 91–113. doi:10.1901/jeab.1999.71-91.
Article PubMed Central PubMed Google Scholar

Download references

Acknowledgments

The research was supported by University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg campus research funds. A portion of these data were presented at the 2015 meeting of the Pennsylvania Association for Behavior Analysis. The author wishes to thank Jessica Everly for her helpful comments on the manuscript, and Courtney Blazowich for her assistance with preparation of the experiment and data collection.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

University of Pittsburgh at Greensburg, Greensburg, PA, USA
Jeffrey J. Everly

Authors

Jeffrey J. Everly
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jeffrey J. Everly.

Ethics declarations

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of Interest

The author declares that he has no conflicts of interest.

Appendix

For each participant (Pt.), the reinforcer and response data from the second block of trials of each condition (Cond.). Conditions are labeled according to the programmed reinforcer ratio (e.g., 1:9) and whether the stimulus disparity was low (L) or high (H). Reinforcer data include the total number of reinforcers obtained for correct circle (R₁₁) and square (R₂₂) responses, and the logarithm of the programmed (Prog.) and obtained (Obt.) reinforcer ratios. The response data include the total number of correct circle responses (B11), incorrect square responses (B12), incorrect circle responses (B21), and correct square responses (B22). Also shown are estimates of log d and log b that were calculated using the response totals.

Pt.	Cond.	R₁₁	R₂₂	Prog.	Obt.	B₁₁	B₁₂	B₂₁	B₂₂	log d	log b
P1	1:9L	5	45	−0.95	−0.95	24	58	14	58	0.12	−0.50
	1:3L	12	38	−0.48	−0.50	31	63	45	51	−0.13	−0.18
	1:1L	25	25	0.00	0.00	43	22	27	41	0.24	0.05
	3:1L	37	13	0.48	0.45	51	16	37	29	0.20	0.30
	9:1L	45	5	0.95	0.95	53	19	58	25	0.04	0.41
	1:9H	5	45	−0.95	−0.95	47	16	8	71	0.71	−0.24
	1:3H	14	36	−0.48	−0.41	64	12	5	68	0.93	−0.20
	1:1H	25	25	0.00	0.00	65	17	10	67	0.70	−0.12
	3:1H	38	12	0.48	0.50	71	12	23	49	0.55	0.22
	9:1H	45	5	0.95	0.95	85	4	22	54	0.86	0.47
P2	1:9L	5	45	−0.95	−0.95	37	47	23	51	0.12	−0.22
	1:3L	13	37	−0.48	−0.45	33	35	22	52	0.17	−0.20
	1:1L	25	25	0.00	0.00	49	30	36	38	0.12	0.09
	3:1L	38	12	0.48	0.50	63	30	41	30	0.09	0.23
	9:1L	45	5	0.95	0.95	53	14	42	18	0.11	0.47
	1:9H	5	45	−0.95	−0.95	47	20	9	67	0.62	−0.25
	1:3H	12	38	−0.48	−0.50	64	13	15	67	0.67	0.02
	1:1H	25	25	0.00	0.00	57	11	21	61	0.59	0.13
	3:1H	37	13	0.48	0.45	71	5	22	54	0.77	0.38
	9:1H	45	5	0.95	0.95	75	3	36	42	0.73	0.67
P3	1:9L	5	45	−0.95	−0.95	25	41	11	51	0.23	−0.44
	1:3L	12	38	−0.48	−0.50	45	32	16	55	0.34	−0.19
	1:1L	25	25	0.00	0.00	43	23	17	43	0.34	−0.07
	3:1L	37	13	0.48	0.45	53	20	35	25	0.14	0.28
	9:1L	45	5	0.95	0.95	55	7	41	25	0.34	0.56
	1:9H	5	45	−0.95	−0.95	32	43	3	70	0.62	−0.75
	1:3H	12	38	−0.48	−0.50	67	22	20	68	0.51	−0.02
	1:1H	25	25	0.00	0.00	87	12	46	65	0.51	0.36
	3:1H	37	13	0.48	0.45	70	9	35	51	0.53	0.36
	9:1H	45	5	0.95	0.95	73	3	41	34	0.65	0.73
P4	1:9L	5	45	−0.95	−0.95	23	27	11	47	0.28	−0.35
	1:3L	13	37	−0.48	−0.45	37	16	11	41	0.47	−0.10
	1:1L	25	25	0.00	0.00	41	10	17	42	0.50	0.11
	3:1L	38	12	0.48	0.50	48	13	26	38	0.37	0.20
	9:1L	45	5	0.95	0.95	48	10	18	22	0.38	0.30
	1:9H	5	45	−0.95	−0.95	68	9	15	56	0.73	0.15
	1:3H	12	38	−0.48	−0.50	76	8	14	63	0.82	0.16
	1:1H	25	25	0.00	0.00	65	2	8	58	1.19	0.33
	3:1H	37	13	0.48	0.45	70	3	27	54	0.83	0.53
	9:1H	45	5	0.95	0.95	80	6	22	66	0.80	0.32
P5	1:9L	5	45	−0.95	−0.95	23	60	32	49	−0.12	−0.30
	1:3L	12	38	−0.48	−0.50	24	61	40	58	−0.12	−0.28
	1:1L	25	25	0.00	0.00	36	29	37	50	0.11	−0.02
	3:1L	38	12	0.48	0.50	53	25	36	28	0.11	0.22
	9:1L	45	5	0.95	0.95	48	14	38	22	0.15	0.39
	1:9H	5	45	−0.95	−0.95	40	25	1	75	1.04	−0.84
	1:3H	12	38	−0.48	−0.50	46	35	7	71	0.56	−0.44
	1:1H	25	25	0.00	0.00	60	20	6	66	0.76	−0.28
	3:1H	38	12	0.48	0.50	75	2	6	59	1.28	0.29
	9:1H	45	5	0.95	0.95	70	3	18	49	0.90	0.47
P6	1:9L	5	45	−0.95	−0.95	32	40	16	47	0.19	−0.28
	1:3L	12	38	−0.48	−0.50	46	29	38	51	0.16	0.04
	1:1L	25	25	0.00	0.00	55	34	44	41	0.09	0.12
	3:1L	38	12	0.48	0.50	58	12	42	33	0.29	0.39
	9:1L	45	5	0.95	0.95	49	18	35	33	0.20	0.23
	1:9H	5	45	−0.95	−0.95	80	4	17	67	0.95	0.35
	1:3H	14	36	−0.48	−0.41	79	5	8	70	1.07	0.13
	1:1H	25	25	0.00	0.00	69	2	10	59	1.15	0.38
	3:1H	38	12	0.48	0.50	66	3	18	53	0.91	0.44
	9:1H	45	5	0.95	0.95	68	2	18	52	1.00	0.54
P7	1:9L	5	45	−0.95	−0.95	38	35	13	53	0.32	−0.29
	1:3L	12	38	−0.48	−0.50	66	32	45	43	0.15	0.17
	1:1L	25	25	0.00	0.00	57	41	44	47	0.09	0.06
	3:1L	38	12	0.48	0.50	52	15	45	24	0.13	0.41
	9:1L	45	5	0.95	0.95	53	14	53	26	0.13	0.44
	1:9H	5	45	−0.95	−0.95	59	17	0	66	1.18	−0.64
	1:3H	13	37	−0.48	−0.45	66	15	1	77	1.26	−0.62
	1:1H	25	25	0.00	0.00	63	4	5	60	1.14	0.06
	3:1H	38	12	0.48	0.50	82	1	30	55	1.09	0.83
	9:1H	45	5	0.95	0.95	78	0	16	59	1.23	0.66
P8	1:9L	5	45	−0.95	−0.95	45	49	47	47	−0.02	−0.02
	1:3L	12	38	−0.48	−0.50	55	42	56	43	0.00	0.12
	1:1L	25	25	0.00	0.00	53	32	55	35	0.01	0.21
	3:1L	38	12	0.48	0.50	52	14	42	25	0.17	0.40
	9:1L	45	5	0.95	0.95	57	22	44	21	0.05	0.37
	1:9H	5	45	−0.95	−0.95	71	13	19	70	0.65	0.09
	1:3H	13	37	−0.48	−0.45	78	4	20	56	0.87	0.42
	1:1H	25	25	0.00	0.00	89	3	29	55	0.88	0.60
	3:1H	38	12	0.48	0.50	74	9	36	41	0.49	0.43
	9:1H	45	5	0.95	0.95	62	4	22	50	0.77	0.42
P9	1:9L	5	45	−0.95	−0.95	31	58	23	50	0.03	−0.30
	1:3L	13	37	−0.48	−0.45	29	40	16	53	0.19	−0.33
	1:1L	25	25	0.00	0.00	44	42	43	48	0.03	−0.01
	3:1L	38	12	0.48	0.50	45	18	28	34	0.24	0.16
	9:1L	45	5	0.95	0.95	54	19	37	19	0.08	0.37
	1:9H	5	45	−0.95	−0.95	49	27	12	77	0.53	−0.27
	1:3H	13	37	−0.48	−0.45	74	16	26	64	0.53	0.14
	1:1H	25	25	0.00	0.00	47	15	14	67	0.59	−0.09
	3:1H	38	12	0.48	0.50	73	4	27	48	0.76	0.51
	9:1H	45	5	0.95	0.95	69	3	42	33	0.63	0.73
P10	1:9L	5	45	−0.95	−0.95	34	40	9	50	0.34	−0.41
	1:3L	13	37	−0.48	−0.45	37	26	21	47	0.25	−0.10
	1:1L	25	25	0.00	0.00	40	15	22	41	0.35	0.08
	3:1L	37	13	0.48	0.45	60	10	41	26	0.29	0.49
	9:1L	45	5	0.95	0.95	57	12	51	25	0.18	0.49
	1:9H	5	45	−0.95	−0.95	76	2	3	71	1.48	0.10
	1:3H	12	38	−0.48	−0.50	59	0	0	70	1.81	−0.04
	1:1H	25	25	0.00	0.00	64	0	3	71	1.59	0.22
	3:1H	38	12	0.48	0.50	85	0	40	43	0.98	0.95
	9:1H	45	5	0.95	0.95	75	0	26	41	1.04	0.84

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Everly, J.J. Human Performance on a Signal Detection Task: Discriminability and Sensitivity to Reinforcement. Psychol Rec 66, 139–151 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-015-0159-7

Download citation

Published: 21 January 2016
Issue Date: March 2016
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40732-015-0159-7

Keywords

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Human Performance on a Signal Detection Task: Discriminability and Sensitivity to Reinforcement

Abstract

Access this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Deciphering human decision rules in motion discrimination

Parsimonious estimation of signal detection models from confidence ratings

Garner interference is not solely driven by stimulus uncertainty

References

Acknowledgments

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Appendix

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Keywords

Navigation

Human Performance on a Signal Detection Task: Discriminability and Sensitivity to Reinforcement

Abstract

Access this article

Similar content being viewed by others

Deciphering human decision rules in motion discrimination

Parsimonious estimation of signal detection models from confidence ratings

Garner interference is not solely driven by stimulus uncertainty

References

Acknowledgments

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Corresponding author

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

Appendix

Appendix

Rights and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Share this article

Keywords

Search

Navigation