Suboptimal decision criteria are predicted by subjectively weighted probabilities and rewards

Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics

Volumn 77, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 638-658

  Ackermann, John F ^a,b   Landy, Michael S ^c  

^a SCHEPENS EYE RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^b HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^c NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision making; Signal detection theory; Spatial Vision

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMAN; MALE; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; PHOTOSTIMULATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REWARD; STATISTICAL MODEL; VISION; YOUNG ADULT;

ALGORITHMS; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; HUMANS; LIKELIHOOD FUNCTIONS; MALE; PHOTIC STIMULATION; PROBABILITY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REWARD; SIGNAL DETECTION, PSYCHOLOGICAL; VISUAL PERCEPTION; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84925488337     PISSN: 19433921     EISSN: 1943393X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/s13414-014-0779-z     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Allais, M. (1953). Le comportement de l’homme rationel devant le risque, critique des postulates et axiomes de l’ecole americaine. Econometrica, 21, 503–546.
2. Allais, M. (1979). The so-called Allais paradox and rational decisions under uncertainty In Allais, M., & Hagen, O. (Eds.), Expected utility hypothesis and the Allais paradox, (pp. 437–681). Dordrecht: Reidel Publishing Company.
3. Anderson, B., Laurent, P., Yantis, S. (2011). Value driven attentional capture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108, 10367–10371.
4. Attneave, F. (1953). Psychological probability as a function of experienced frequency. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 81–86.
5. Bernoulli, D. (1954). Exposition of a new theory of risk [translation by L. Sommer of D. Bernoulli, 1738, specimen theoriae novae de mensura sortis, papers of the Imperial Academy of Science of Saint Petersburg, 175–192]. Econometrica, 22(1), 23–36.
6. Carrasco, M. (2006). Covert attention increases contrast sensitivity: Psychophysical, neurophysiological, and neuroimaging studies In Martinez-Conde, S., Macknik, S., Martinez, L., Alonso, J., Tse, P. (Eds.), Visual Perception. Part I. Fundamentals of Vision: Low and Mid-Level Processes in Perception, Volume 154 of Progress in Brain Research, (pp. 33–70). New York: Elsevier.
7. Carrasco, M. (2011). Visual attention: The past 25 years. Vision Research, 51, 1484–1525.
8. Cook, R. (1982). Residuals and influence in regression. New York: Chapman and Hall.
9. Coombs, C.H., Dawes, R.M., Tversky, A. (1970). Mathematical psychology: An elementary introduction. New York: Prentice Hall.
10. Cornelissen, F.W., Peters, E.M., Palmer, J (2002). The eyelink toolbox: Eye tracking with matlab and the psychophysics toolbox. Behavior Research Methods: Instruments & Computers, 34, 613–617.
11. Della Libera, C. (2006). Visual selective attention and the effects of monetary rewards. Psychological Science, 17, 222–227.
12. Evans, K., Tambouret, R., Evered, A., Wilbur, D., Wolfe, J. (2011). Prevalence of abnormalities influences cytologists’ error rates in screening for cervical cancer. Archives of Pathology and Laboratory Medicine, 135, 1557–1560.
13. Fox, C., & Poldrack, R. (2009). Prospect theory and the brain In Glimcher, P., Camerer, C., Fehr, E., Poldrack, R. (Eds.), Neuroeconomics: Decision Making and the Brain, (pp. 145–173). New York: Elsevier.
14. Galanter, E., & Holman, G (1967). Some invariances of the isosensitivity function and their implications for the utility function of money. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73, 333–339.
15. Gonzalez, R., & Wu, G. (1999). On the shape of the probability weighting function. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 129–166.
16. Green, D., & Swets, J. (1966). Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Kreiger Publishing Co.
17. Healy, A.F., & Kubovy, M (1978). The effects of payoffs and prior probabilities on indices of performance and cutoff location in recognition memory. Memory and Cognition, 6, 544–553.
18. Healy, A.F., & Kubovy, M (1981). Probability matching and the formation of conservative decision rules in a numerical analog of signal detection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 7, 344–354.
19. Hertwig, R., Barron, G., Weber, E., Erev, I. (2004). Decisions from experience and the effect of rare events in risky choice. Psychological Science, 15, 534–539.
20. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 4, 263–291.
21. Kubovy, M. (1977). A possible basis for conservatism in signal detection and probabilistic categorization tasks. Perception and Psychophysics, 22, 277–281.
22. Kubovy, M., & Healy, A (1977). The decision rule in probabilistic categorization: What it is and how it works. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 427–446.
23. Lee, W., & Janke, M. (1965). Categorizing externally distributed stimulus samples for unequal molar probabilities. Psychological Reports, 17, 79–90.
24. Maddox, W.T. (2002). Toward a unified theory of decision criterion learning in perceptual categorization. Journal of Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 78, 567–595.
25. Maddox, W.T., & Bohil, C.J. (1998a). Base-rate and payoff effects in multidimensional perceptual organization. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 1459–1482.
26. Maddox, W.T., & Dodd, J.L. (2001). On the relation between base-rate and cost-benefit learning in simulated medical diagnosis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 27, 1367–1384.
27. Maloney, L.T., & Thomas, E.A.C (1991). Distributional assumptions and observed conservatism in the theory of signal detectability. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 35, 443–470.
28. Markman, A.B., Baldwin, G.C., Maddox, W. (2005). The interaction of payoff structure and regulatory focus in classification. Psychological Science, 16, 852–855.
29. Markovsky, I., & Van Huffel, S. (2007). Overview of total least squares methods. Signal Processing, 87, 2283–2302.
30. Petras, I., & Bednarova, D. (2010). Total least squares approach to modeling: A matlab toolbox. Acta Montanistica Slovaca, 15, 158–170.
31. Preston, M., & Baratta, P. (1948). An experimental study of the auction-value of an uncertain outcome. The American Journal of Psychology, 61, 183–193.
32. Rich, A., Kunar, M.A., Van Wert, M., Hidalgo-Sotelo, B., Horowitz, T., Wolfe, J. (2008). Why do we miss rare targets? Exploring the boundaries of the low prevalence effect. Journal of Vision, 8(15):15, 1–17.
33. Tanner, W. (1956). Theory of recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 28, 882–888.
34. Thomas, E.A.C., & Legge, D. (1970). Probability matching as a basis for detection and recognition decisions. Psychological Review, 77, 65–72.
35. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1986). Rational choice and the framing of decisions. The Journal of Business, 59(4), S251– S278.
36. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1992). Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty, 5, 297–323.
37. Ulehla, Z.J. (1966). Optimality of perceptual decision criteria. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 71, 564–569.
38. Varey, C., Mellers, B., Birnbaum, M. (1990). Judgments of proportions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 613–625.
39. Williamson, O. (1981). The economics of organization: The transaction cost approach. American Journal of Sociology, 87, 548–577.
40. Von Winterfeldt, D., & Edwards, W. (1982). Costs and payoffs in perceptual research. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 609–622.
41. Wolfe, J., & Van Wert, M. (2010). Varying target prevalence reveals two dissociable decision criteria in visual search. Current Biology, 20, 121–124.
42. Wolfe, J.M., Horowitz, T., Kenner, N. (2005). Rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature, 435, 439–440.