Receiver operating characteristics from nonhuman animals: Some implications and directions for research with humans

Abstract

Reviews of signal detection have largely overlooked the research involving nonhuman animal subjects. Some of this research is presented and reanalyzed here. Plots of receiver operating characteristics show that human and nonhuman signal-detection performance is very similar. The studies emphasize the series of discriminations that comprise signal-detection tasks and illustrate the systematic effects of different methods of arranging payoffs or feedback, of the consistency of that feedback, and of the physical disparity between response alternatives. The data provide some support for recent theoretical accounts that favor a criterion location measure of isobias over the likelihood ratio, but they also suggest that more systematic work is required in this area. Overall, this research supports many contemporary views concerning signal detection, and it provides an alternative way of looking at some recurrent issues. It also suggests that extensions of signal detection to analyze data from other research paradigms require some caution, and it offers directions for complementary research with human subjects.

Separate modifiability, mental modules, and the use of pure and composite measures to reveal them

“…For example, when the relative frequencies of S T and S NT have been manipulated instead of being kept equal (a d-factor), it has been found (Markowitz & Swets, 1967) that d H is affected, presumably because such variation also aects``knowledge of the signal'', an s-factor. The possibility considered by Alsop (1998), and by others whose work he reviews, is that the problem may be a failure of the assumption that PM in¯uences D selectively and controls response bias. It is true that if a subject operates so as to maximize the expected value of a trial, and learns the X T and X NT distributions, then the optimal criterion can be computed from them and the payo matrix.…”

“…However, until recently SDT has failed to provide any M D that is invariant with respect to sensory factors. Recent work with pigeons (Alsop, 1998;McCarthy & Davison, 1984) suggests that the problem lies not with M D but rather with the principle factor used to in¯uence and control D. By using a dierent factor, the approximate modularity of S and D can be demonstrated. This example, therefore, shows how critical is the choice of factors.…”

“…However, despite attempts to ®nd a pure measure M D of the decision process ± in particular, a measure that re¯ects response bias ± none has been found that is invariant with respect to s-factors (as well as being sensitive to d-factors) in experiments with either humans (Dusoir, 1975(Dusoir, , 1983, or with animals, using payo matrices such as PM3 in Table 6 (Alsop, 1998). The SDT approach thus seems to provide only a``partial modularity'' (footnote 12) in which property p 2 (M D 8s-factors, Table 2) does not obtain.…”

Forgetting functions

“…In the same way that signal presentation probability in signal detection procedures is linked to payoff probability (Alsop, 1998), need probability of remembered events is linked to payoff. Accordingly, remembering is sensitive to its differential consequences or payoffs (White & Cooney, 1996).…”

Cognitive theories as reinforcement history surrogates: The case of likelihood ratio models of human recognition memory

“…To the extent that this point is appreciated, the relevance of animal memory research to the understanding of human memory becomes much clearer than it otherwise might be. Indeed, it is only in the animal laboratory that the connection between an organism's prior reinforcement history and its current memory decisions is clearly evident (Alsop, 1998). To quote Skinner (1953) again: "We study the behavior of animals because it is simpler.…”