Publication Date:
2018-06-05
Description:
An analysis was made of the role of presentation schedules and information feedback on performance in a forced-choice signal detection task. The experimental results indicate that information feedback facilitates performance, but only for certain presentation schedules. The present study was designed to assess performance in a signal detection task under two conditions of information feedback. In the I-condition, S was told on each trial whether his detection response was correct or incorrect; in the !-condition S was given no feedback regarding the correctness of his response. The task involved a 2-response, forced-choice auditory detection problem. On each trial 2 temporal intervals were defined and S was required to report which interval he believed contained the signal; i. e., in one interval a tone burst in a background of white noise was presented, while the other interval contained only white noise. A trial will be denoted as s1 or s2, depending on whether the signal was embedded in the 1st or 2nd interval; the S's response will be denoted A1 or A2 to indicate which interval he reported contained the signal. The probability of an s1 trial will be denoted as y. In this study two values of y were used (.50 and.75) and, as indicated above, two conditions of information feedback. Thus there were 4 experimental conditions (501, 50I, 751, 75I); each S was run under all 4 conditions. Method Gaussian noise was presented binaurally in S's headphones throughout a test session and the signal was a 1000-cps sinusoid tone; the tone was presented for 100 msec. including equal fall and rise times of 20 msec. The ratio of signal energy to noise power in a unit bandwidth was 2.9, and was constant throughout the study. The. S was seated before a stimulus display board. On each trial a red warning light was flashed for 100 msec. Two amber lights then came on successively each for 1 sec.; these lights defined the 2 observation intervals. The onset of the signal occurred 500 msec. after the onset of one of the observation intervals. After the second amber light went off, S indicated his response by pressing 1 of 2 wand switches under cards reading "1st interval" and "2nd interval." For the !-condition a green light flashed on above the correct response key after S's response; the green light was omitted in the !-condition. Each trial lasted 6 sec. The S's were 12 male college students with normal hearing. They were run for two practice sessions followed by 20 test sessions. Test sessions were run on consecutive days, 350 trials/day. Each day S ran on 1 of the 4 experimental conditions; in successive 4-day blocks S ran one day on each of the 4 experimental conditions in a random order. Thus, over 20 days each of the experimental conditions was repeated 5 times.
Keywords:
Behavioral Sciences
Type:
Psychonomic Science; Volume 1; No. 1-12; 83-84
Format:
application/pdf
Permalink