Abstract
Brown and White (2009) proposed measures of discriminability and bias that accommodate additional dimensions of choice—and hence, bias—in conditional discriminations such as matching-to-sample and the yes-no signal detection task. Their proposed measures increase the statistical independence of discriminability and bias estimates, thus improving their accuracy. Because Brown and White’s (2009) equations partition response data more than do standard equations, however, their measures have a slightly lower ceiling. Consequently, measurements can be less accurate when there are few trials and discriminability and bias are extreme. We introduce a computational estimation technique that overcomes this limitation. It estimates Brown and White’s (2009) discriminability and bias measurements from an array of related measures that have a higher ceiling. Simulations show that resulting estimates of discriminability and bias are either comparable to or more accurate than measurements calculated from traditional equations or Brown and White’s (2009) direct measures, even with few trials. A worked example of our technique may be downloaded from brm.psychonomic-journals.org/ content/supplemental.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Blough, D. S. (1959). Delayed matching in the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 2, 151–160.
Brown, G. S., & White, K. G. (2005). The optimal correction for estimating extreme discriminability. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 436–449.
Brown, G. S., & White, K. G. (2009). Measuring discriminability when there are multiple sources of bias. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 75–84.
D’Amato, M. R. (1973). Delayed matching and short-term memory in monkeys. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 7, pp. 227–269). New York: Academic Press.
Davison, M. C., & Tustin, R. D. (1978). The relation between the generalized matching law and signal-detection theory. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 51, 291–315.
Goodman, L. A. (1970). The multivariate analysis of qualitative data: Interactions among multiple classifications. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 65, 226–256.
Grant, D. S. (1975). Proactive interference in pigeon short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 3, 207–220.
Grant, D. S. (1982). Samples of stimuli, responses, and reinforcers: Effect of incongruent sample type, serial position, and mode of presentation. Animal Learning & Behavior, 10, 7–14.
Green, D. M., & Swets, J. A. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
Hautus, M. J. (1995). Corrections for extreme proportions and their biasing effects on estimated values of d′. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 27, 46–51.
Jones, B. M. (2003). Quantitative analyses of matching-to-sample performance. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 79, 323–350.
Kadlec, H. (1999). Statistical properties of d’ and β estimates of signal detection theory. Psychological Methods, 4, 22–43.
Katz, J. L. (1989). Two types of bias in psychophysical detection and recognition procedures: Nonparametric indices and effects of drugs. Psychopharmacology, 97, 202–205.
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: Wiley.
Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1991). Detection theory: A user’s guide. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
McNicol, D. (1972). A primer of signal detection theory. London: Allen & Unwin.
Michalewicz, Z., & Fogel, D. B. (2004). How to solve it: Modern heuristics (2nd ed.). New York: Springer.
Miller, J. (1996). The sampling distribution of d′. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 65–72.
Myung, I. J. (2003). Tutorial on maximum likelihood estimation. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 47, 90–100.
Nevin, J. A. (1981). Psychophysics and reinforcement schedules: An integration. In M. L. Commons & J. A. Nevin (Eds.), Quantitative analyses of behavior: Vol. 1. Discriminative properties of reinforcement schedules (pp. 3–27). Cambridge, MA: Ballinger.
Nevin, J. A., & Grosch, J. (1990). Effects of signaled reinforcer magnitude on delayed matching-to-sample performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 16, 298–305.
White, K. G., Ruske, A. C., & Colombo, M. (1996). Memory procedures, performance and processes in pigeons. Cognitive Brain Research, 3, 309–317.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The present research was supported by a Claude McCarthy Fellowship to G.S.B. Reprints and copies of the spreadsheets and Visual Basic programs used to conduct the analyses may be requested from G. S. Brown
Electronic supplementary material
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Brown, G.S., White, K.G. A computational technique for improving estimates of discriminability and bias across multiple dimensions of choice. Behavior Research Methods 41, 515–523 (2009). https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.515
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.515