Type 2 Tasks in the Theory of Signal Detectability: Discrimination Between Correct and Incorrect Decisions

Overview

Journal Psychon Bull Rev

Specialty Psychology

Date 2004 Mar 6

PMID 15000533

Citations 142

Authors

Susan J Galvin

John V Podd

Vit Drga

John Whitmore

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

It has been known for over 40 years that there are two fundamentally different kinds of detection tasks in the theory of signal detectability. The Type 1 task is to distinguish between events defined independently of the observer; the Type 2 task is to distinguish between one's own correct and incorrect decisions about those Type 1 events. For the Type 1 task, the behavior of the detector can be summarized by the traditional receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. This curve can be compared with a theoretical ROC curve, which can be generated from overlapping probability functions conditional on the Type 1 events on an appropriate decision axis. We show how to derive the probability functions underlying Type 2 decisions from those for the Type 1 task. ROC curves and the usual measures of performance are readily obtained from those Type 2 functions, and some relationships among various Type 1 and Type 2 performance measures are presented. We discuss the relationship between Type 1 and Type 2 confidence ratings and caution against the practice of presenting transformed Type 2 ratings as empirical Type 1 ratings.

Citing Articles

Touch-driven advantages in reaction time but not in performance in a cross-sensory comparison of reinforcement learning.

Sun W, Ripp I, Borrmann A, Moll M, Fairhurst M Heliyon. 2025; 11(1):e41330.

PMID: 39839521 PMC: 11748724. DOI: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e41330.

Prior Information Shapes Perceptual Confidence.

Tarasi L, Covelli M, Tabarelli de Fatis C, Romei V J Cogn. 2025; 8(1):11.

PMID: 39822242 PMC: 11736391. DOI: 10.5334/joc.417.

A comprehensive assessment of current methods for measuring metacognition.

Rahnev D Nat Commun. 2025; 16(1):701.

PMID: 39814749 PMC: 11735976. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-025-56117-0.

Consciousness Under the Spotlight: The Problem of Measuring Subjective Experience.

Jimenez M, Prieto A, Hinojosa J, Montoro P Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2024; 16(1):e1697.

PMID: 39449331 PMC: 11652689. DOI: 10.1002/wcs.1697.

Action-based confidence sharing and collective decision making.

Coucke N, Heinrich M, Dorigo M, Cleeremans A iScience. 2024; 27(10):111006.

PMID: 39429786 PMC: 11490717. DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2024.111006.

References

Kolb F, Braun J . Blindsight in normal observers. Nature. 1995; 377(6547):336-8. DOI: 10.1038/377336a0. View

MURDOCK Jr B . The criterion problem in short-term memory. J Exp Psychol. 1966; 72(3):317-24. DOI: 10.1037/h0023646. View

Kunimoto C, Miller J, Pashler H . Confidence and accuracy of near-threshold discrimination responses. Conscious Cogn. 2001; 10(3):294-340. DOI: 10.1006/ccog.2000.0494. View

Critchfield T . Signal-detection properties of verbal self-reports. J Exp Anal Behav. 1993; 60(3):495-514. PMC: 1322161. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.1993.60-495. View

SWETS J, Tanner Jr W, BIRDSALL T . Decision processes in perception. Psychol Rev. 1961; 68:301-40. View

Busey T, Tunnicliff J, Loftus G, Loftus E . Accounts of the confidence-accuracy relation in recognition memory. Psychon Bull Rev. 2000; 7(1):26-48. DOI: 10.3758/bf03210724. View

Gigerenzer G, Hoffrage U, Kleinbolting H . Probabilistic mental models: a Brunswikian theory of confidence. Psychol Rev. 1991; 98(4):506-28. DOI: 10.1037/0033-295x.98.4.506. View

Van Zandt T . ROC curves and confidence judgements in recognition memory. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 2000; 26(3):582-600. DOI: 10.1037//0278-7393.26.3.582. View

Merikle P, Smilek D, Eastwood J . Perception without awareness: perspectives from cognitive psychology. Cognition. 2001; 79(1-2):115-34. DOI: 10.1016/s0010-0277(00)00126-8. View

10.

Swets J . The Relative Operating Characteristic in Psychology: A technique for isolating effects of response bias finds wide use in the study of perception and cognition. Science. 1973; 182(4116):990-1000. DOI: 10.1126/science.182.4116.990. View

11.

Baranski J, Petrusic W . Probing the locus of confidence judgments: experiments on the time to determine confidence. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 1998; 24(3):929-45. DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.24.3.929. View

12.

Higham P . Strong cues are not necessarily weak: Thomson and Tulving (1970) and the encoding specificity principle revisited. Mem Cognit. 2002; 30(1):67-80. DOI: 10.3758/bf03195266. View

13.

Taylor A, Boven R, Whitmore J . Reduction of unique noise in the psychophysics of hearing by Group Operating Characteristic analysis. Psychol Bull. 1991; 109(1):133-46. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.109.1.133. View

14.

Keren G . On the ability of monitoring non-veridical perceptions and uncertain knowledge: some calibration studies. Acta Psychol (Amst). 1988; 67(2):95-119. DOI: 10.1016/0001-6918(88)90007-8. View