Classification images reveal decision variables and strategies in forced choice tasks

Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America

Volumn 112, Issue 23, 2015, Pages 7321-7326

  Pritchett, Lisa M ^a   Murray, Richard F ^a  

^a YORK UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Classification images; Decision making; Psychophysics; Signal detection theory; Vision

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CLASSIFICATION; DECISION MAKING; FORCED CHOICE METHOD; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INFORMATION; MEASUREMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; TASK PERFORMANCE; THEORY; UNCERTAINTY;

CHOICE BEHAVIOR; HUMANS;

EID: 84931281469     PISSN: 00278424     EISSN: 10916490     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1422169112     Document Type: Article

References (22)

1. Green DM, Swets JA (1966/1974) Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics (Kreiger, Malabar, FL).
2. Murray RF, Bennett PJ, Sekuler AB (2005) Classification images predict absolute efficiency. J Vis 5(2):139-149.
3. Murray RF (2011) Classification images: A review. J Vis 11(5):2.
4. Murray RF, Bennett PJ, Sekuler AB (2002) Optimal methods for calculating classification images: Weighted sums. J Vis 2(1):79-104.
5. Ahumada AJ, Jr (2002) Classification image weights and internal noise level estimation. J Vis 2(1):121-131.
6. Abbey CK, Eckstein MP (2002) Classification image analysis: Estimation and statistical inference for two-alternative forced-choice experiments. J Vis 2(1):66-78.
7. Tanner WP, Jr, Swets JA (1954) A decision-making theory of visual detection. Psychol Rev 61(6):401-409.
8. Ashby FG, Gott RE (1988) Decision rules in the perception and categorization of multidimensional stimuli. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 14(1):33-53.
9. Treisman M, Leshowitz B (1969) The effects of duration, area, and background intensity on the visual intensity difference threshold given by the forced-choice procedure: Derivations from a statistical decision model for sensory discrimination. Percept Psychophys 6(5):281-296.
10. Yeshurun Y, Carrasco M, Maloney LT (2008) Bias and sensitivity in two-interval forced choice procedures: Tests of the difference model. Vision Res 48(17):1837-1851.
11. García-Pérez MA, Alcalá-Quintana R (2010) The difference model with guessing explains interval bias in two-alternative forced-choice detection procedures. J Sens Stud 25(6):876-898.
12. Wickelgren WA (1968) Unidimensional strength theory and component analysis of noise in absolute and comparative judgments. J Math Psychol 5(1): 102-122.
13. Akaike H (1974) A new look at statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 19(6):716-723.
14. Pelli DG (1985) Uncertainty explains many aspects of visual contrast detection and discrimination. J Opt Soc Am A 2(9):1508-1532.
15. Pelli DG, Farell B, Moore DC (2003) The remarkable inefficiency of word recognition. Nature 423(6941):752-756.
16. Tjan BS, Nandy AS (2006) Classification images with uncertainty. J Vis 6(4): 387-413.
17. Gold JM, Murray RF, Bennett PJ, Sekuler AB (2000) Deriving behavioural receptive fields for visually completed contours. Curr Biol 10(11):663-666.
18. Ratcliff R, Smith PL (2004) A comparison of sequential sampling models for twochoice reaction time. Psychol Rev 111(2):333-367.
19. Wilder JD, Aitkin C (2014) Saccadic timing is determined by both accumulated evidence and the passage of time J Vis 14(10), 753 (abstr).
20. Palmer J, Verghese P, Pavel M (2000) The psychophysics of visual search. Vision Res 40(10-12):1227-1268.
21. Wetherill GB, Levitt H (1965) Sequential estimation of points on a psychometric function. Br J Math Stat Psychol 18(1):1-10.
22. Neri P (2010) How inherently noisy is human sensory processing? Psychon Bull Rev 17(6):802-808.