Literature DB >> 16405138

The optimal correction for estimating extreme discriminability.

Glenn S Brown1, K Geoffrey White.   

Abstract

Discriminability measures such as d' and log d become infinite when performance is extremely accurate and no errors are recorded. Different arbitrary corrections can be applied to produce finite values, but how well do these values estimate true performance? To answer this question, we directly calculated the effects of a range of different corrections on the sampling distributions of d' and log d. Many arbitrary corrections produced better estimates of discriminability than did the intuitively plausible technique of rerunning problem conditions. We concluded that when it is not possible to run more trials and when other techniques are not appropriate, the best correction overall is to add a correction constant between 0.25 and 0.5 to all response counts, regardless of their value.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16405138     DOI: 10.3758/bf03192712

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Behav Res Methods        ISSN: 1554-351X


  38 in total

1.  Recalibration of the auditory continuity illusion: sensory and decisional effects.

Authors:  Lars Riecke; Christophe Micheyl; Mieke Vanbussel; Claudia S Schreiner; Daniel Mendelsohn; Elia Formisano
Journal:  Hear Res       Date:  2011-01-27       Impact factor: 3.208

2.  Remembering: the role of extraneous reinforcement.

Authors:  Glenn S Brown; K Geoffrey White
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 1.986

3.  Seasonal variation in pigeon body weight and delayed matching-to-sample performance.

Authors:  Rebecca J Sargisson; Ian G McLean; Glenn S Brown; K Geoffrey White
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2007-11       Impact factor: 2.468

4.  Remembering as discrimination in delayed matching to sample: discriminability and bias.

Authors:  Rebecca J Sargisson; K Geoffrey White
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 1.986

5.  Timing, remembering, and discrimination.

Authors:  Rebecca J Sargisson; K Geoffrey White
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 2.468

6.  Effects of prefeeding, extinction, and distraction during sample and comparison presentation on sensitivity to reinforcer frequency in matching to sample.

Authors:  Ryan D Ward; Robert N Johnson; Amy L Odum
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2009-02-13       Impact factor: 1.777

7.  Sensitivity of conditional-discrimination performance to within-session variation of reinforcer frequency.

Authors:  Ryan D Ward; Amy L Odum
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 2.468

8.  Contrast effects in response rate and accuracy of delayed matching to sample.

Authors:  John A Nevin; Timothy A Shahan; Amy L Odum
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.143

9.  On the development and mechanics of delayed matching-to-sample performance.

Authors:  Brian D Kangas; Meredith S Berry; Marc N Branch
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 2.468

10.  Effect of signaled reinforcer magnitude on delayed matching-to-sample performance in individuals with intellectual disabilities.

Authors:  Yusuke Hayashi; Sarah E Hall; Dean C Williams
Journal:  Behav Processes       Date:  2013-03-21       Impact factor: 1.777

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.