Recognition Assessed by D ′ and by a Non-Parametric Alternative (the A -Index) as a Function of the Number of Choices

Abstract

Freedom from restrictive assumptions and ease of psychological interpretation are two basic criteria for a satisfactory measure of recognition performance. The A-index (Brown, 1965a) comes close to fulfilling these criteria. It is based on the proportion of wrong choices rejected in a multi-choice test as revealed by the number of choices required to select the correct choice. It can be transformed into the d′ measure of signal detection theory (SDT) if the standard assumptions of this theory hold, but not in general. Two experiments on the recognition of words-in-noise are described. In the first there were 3, 5, 8 or 16 choices. They were typed on a card which was displayed to the listener during the presentation of a word. On both measures 5-, 8- and 16-choice recognition did not differ significantly, while 3-choice recognition was slightly, but significantly, superior. The second experiment concerned the effect of delaying the display of the card until 2 sec. after presentation. No evidence for an effect was obtained. In both experiments, there was suggestive but not conclusive evidence that the d′ measure tended to overestimate recognition efficiency.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Brown

Multiple response evaluation of discrimination.

Br. J. math, statist. Psychol. 1965a 18, 125–37.

Brown

A comparison of recognition and recall by a multiple-response method.

J. verb. Learn. verb. Behav. 1965b 4, 401–8.

Brown

Packham

D. W.

(1967). The effect of prior recall on multiple response recognition. Q. Jl exp. Psychol. 19, 356–61.

Brown

Routh

(1968). Recall, recognition and number of choices. J. verb. Learn. verb. Behav. 7, 1108–11.

Clarke

F. R.

(1960). Confidence ratings, second-choice responses, and confusion matrices in intelligibility tests. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 32, 35–46.

Crowder

R. G.

Morton

(1969). Precategorical acoustic storage (PAS). Percept. Psychophys. 5, 365–73.

Elliott

P. B.

(1959). Tables of d' 651–684University of Michigan: Electronic Defense Group, Technical Report No. 97. (Reprinted in Swets, 1964 as Appendix I.

Garner

W. R.

(1962). Uncertainty and Structure as Psychological Concepts New York: John Wiley & Sons Inc.

Green

D. M.

Birdsall

T. G.

(1958). The effect of vocabulary size on articulation score 609–619University of Michigan: Electronic Defense Group, Technical Report No. 8I (Reprinted in Swets, 1964 as Chapter 32.

10.

Green

D. M.

Swets

J. A.

(1966). Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics London: John Wiley.

11.

Holloway

C. M.

(1968). Decision complexity and speech recognition England: University of Hull Unpublished doctoral dissertation.

12.

Luce

R. D.

(1959). Individual Choice Behaviour New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

13.

Miller

G. A.

Heise

G. A.

Lichten

(1951). The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials. J. exp. Psychol. 41, 329–35.

14.

Milton

R. C.

(1970). Rank Order Probabilities: Two-Sample Normal Shift Alternatives London: John Wiley.

15.

Morton

(1969). Interaction of information in word recognition. Psychol. Rev. 76, 165–78.

16.

Neisser

(1967). Cognitive Psychology New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

17.

Page

E. B.

(1963). Ordered hypotheses for multiple treatments: a significance test for linear ranks. J. Am. statist. Ass. 58, 216–30.

18.

Pollack

(1964). Message probability and message reception. J. acoust. Soc. Am. 36, 937–45.

19.

Signal Detection and Recognition by Human Observers Swets

J. A.

London: John Wiley 1964.

20.

Swets

J. A.

Tanner

W. P.

Jr. Birdsall

T. G.

(1961). Decision processes in perception. Psychol. Rev. 68, 301–40.