2017
DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2017.1852
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The erroneous signals of detection theory

Abstract: Signal detection theory has influenced the behavioural sciences for over 50 years. The theory provides a simple equation that indicates numerous 'intuitive' results; e.g. prey should be more prone to take evasive action (in response to an ambiguous cue) if predators are more common. Here, we use analytical and computational models to show that, in numerous biological scenarios, the standard results of signal detection theory do not apply; more predators can result in prey being less responsive to such cues. Th… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2

Citation Types

4
43
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 27 publications
(47 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
4
43
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The reason is that chronically elevated danger lowers the expectation of survival, which reduces the value of the future and so raises the value of present investment. Trimmer et al (2017) use signal detection theory to reach the same conclusion. Though the RAH does not explicitly consider the present-future trade-off, all three approaches conclude that responses to a predator depend on the larger context.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 77%
“…The reason is that chronically elevated danger lowers the expectation of survival, which reduces the value of the future and so raises the value of present investment. Trimmer et al (2017) use signal detection theory to reach the same conclusion. Though the RAH does not explicitly consider the present-future trade-off, all three approaches conclude that responses to a predator depend on the larger context.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 77%
“…Despite its popularity and versatility, SDT has recently come in for stark criticism (Trimmer et al 2017a;McNamara and Trimmer 2019). The focus for criticism in these papers was the single-encounter formulation, referred to as "standard" (Trimmer et al 2017a) or "classical" (McNamara and Trimmer 2019) signal detection theory. The single-encounter formulation makes the reasonable prediction that as the probability of a given event increases, individuals should be more likely to make the decision that is appropriate for that event.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, if the underlying probability of danger or harm increases, individuals should be more cautious and likely to take steps to avoid that danger. However, despite its intuitive appeal, this insight is described as "thoroughly misleading" when applied to ecological scenarios that involve sequential encounters (Trimmer et al 2017a). By modelling the building up of energy reserves under risk of predation, Trimmer et al (2017a) and McNamara and Trimmer (2019) have shown (somewhat counter-intuitively) that it can be optimal to respond to a higher overall probability of danger by being less cautious.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The mechanisms through which boldness subsides in the presence of unfamiliar objects, scents and noises is unknown. One possibility though, is that neophobia may provide a fitness advantage when inspecting novel stimuli as this behaviour may incur greater costs, even under natural conditions (Lima & Bednekoff, ; Higginson et al ., ; Trimmer et al ., ). Neophobia may also be more advantageous in urban areas as this behavioural response could protect lizards from dangers such as pollutants (Greggor et al ., ), or by reducing the time exploring novel stimuli which may impose greater vulnerability to unfamiliar predators (e.g.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%