↓ Skip to main content

Indecision on decisional separability

Overview of attention for article published in Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, November 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
24 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
41 Mendeley
Title
Indecision on decisional separability
Published in
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, November 2010
DOI 10.3758/s13423-010-0017-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael L. Mack, Jennifer J. Richler, Isabel Gauthier, Thomas J. Palmeri

Abstract

The theoretical framework of General Recognition Theory (GRT; Ashby & Townsend, Psychological Review, 93, 154-179, 1986) coupled with the empirical analysis tools of Multidimensional Signal Detection Analysis (MSDA; Kadlec & Townsend, Multidimensional models of perception and recognition, pp. 181-228, 1992) have become one important method for assessing dimensional interactions in perceptual decision-making. In this article, we critically examine MSDA and characterize cases where it is unable to discriminate two kinds of dimensional interactions: perceptual separability and decisional separability. We performed simulations with known instances of violations of perceptual or decisional separability, applied MSDA to the data generated by these simulations, and evaluated MSDA on its ability to accurately characterize the perceptual versus decisional source of these simulated dimensional interactions. Critical cases of violations of perceptual separability are often mischaracterized by MSDA as violations of decisional separability.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 41 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 4 10%
Unknown 37 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 10 24%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 22%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 7%
Professor 3 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 7%
Other 9 22%
Unknown 4 10%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 24 59%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 7%
Engineering 3 7%
Neuroscience 2 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 1 2%
Other 2 5%
Unknown 6 15%