Feedback and Psychophysical Variables in Signal Detection

Abstract

144 observers, divided into eight groups of 18 each, were run in a two-alternative, temporal, forced-choice auditory-signal-detection task. At each of two signal intensities, four levels of information feedback were used. No feedback (NF); correct feedback on every trial (F100), on three-fourths (F75), or half (F50) of the trials, with incorrect feedback on remaining trials. The results were that (a) NF and F100 led to higher probability of correct responding P(C) than either F75 or F50 for both signal intensities; (b) P(C) for NF was higher under the higher intensity but lower under the lower intensity than for F100; (c) on trials immediately following trials on which observer's response and feedback agreed, detection rates were higher and false-alarm rates were lower than following disagreement trials, whereas these differences were close to zero for F50. It is argued that feedback leads the observer to change his criterion following disagreements. The effect of this variability is to depress the mean detectability index d′ of signal-detectability theory.

Examining recognition criterion rigidity during testing using a biased-feedback technique: Evidence for adaptive criterion learning

“…If the old/new decision criterion varied in its position from trial to trial, feedback could help minimize this criterion variance by informing subjects more quickly and directly about the appropriateness of a chosen location. This would, in turn, elevate performance because trial-to-trial changes in the criterion location reduce the observed accuracy of the observer (Carterette, Friedman, & Wyman, 1966;Friedman, Carterette, & Nakatani, 1968;Treisman & Williams, 1984). Although plausible, neither of these hypotheses was supported by the results.…”

Stimulus presentation frequency in brightness discrimination and generalization: A test of adaptation-level and signal-detection interpretations

“…The effect of feedback often depends on the way in which it is combined with other variables. For example, several studies have reported that (correct) feedback facilitates detection performance when the discrimination is a difficult one, but actually impedes performance on an easy discrimination (Carterette, Friedman, & Wyman, 1966;Carterette & Wyman, 1962;Gundy, 1961).…”

Facilitative and inhibitory effects of cuing sound duration, intensity, and timbre

“…On the contrary, a tradition of examining the selection of nonverbal sounds also developed throughout this period. For example, a great deal of research has been performed to delineate sensitivity to quiet or brief auditory signals (e.g., Carterette, Friedman, & Wyman, 1966;Creelman, 1959;Green, McKey, & Licklider, 1959;Jeffress, 1967). Results obtained from many such experiments have established that the accuracy of detection of a pure tone embedded in noise (this sound is usually referred to as the probe) is best when the frequency expected by the listener matches the frequency of the sound actually presented, with performance declining as the frequency difference between the probe and expectation increases (e.g., Dai, Scharf, & Buus, 1991;Huggins, 1952;Johnson & Hafter, 1980;Macmillan & Schwartz, 1975;Penner, 1972;Scharf, Quigley, Aoki, Peachey, & Reeves, 1987;Schlauch & Hafter, 1991;Sorkin, Pastore, & Gilliom, 1968).…”