Visual field differences in a facial recognition task using signal detection theory

1978 ◽  
Vol 16 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-107 ◽  
Author(s):  
David C. Finlay ◽  
John French
2009 ◽  
Vol 109 (1) ◽  
pp. 270-284 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joceline Rogé ◽  
Catherine Gabaude

The goal of this study was to establish whether the deterioration of the useful visual field due to sleep deprivation and age in a screen monitoring activity could be explained by a decrease in perceptual sensitivity and/or a modification of the participant's decision criterion (two indices derived from signal detection theory). In the first experiment, a comparison of three age groups (young, middle-aged, elderly) showed that perceptual sensitivity decreased with age and that the decision criterion became more conservative. In the second experiment, measurement of the useful visual field was carried out on participants who had been deprived of sleep the previous night or had a complete night of sleep. Perceptual sensitivity significantly decreased with sleep debt, and sleep deprivation provoked an increase in the participants' decision criterion. Moreover, the comparison of two age groups (young, middle-aged) indicated that sensitivity decreased with age. The value of using these two indices to explain the deterioration of useful visual field is discussed.


Information ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (8) ◽  
pp. 254 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reeves

In this paper, I first review signal detection theory (SDT) approaches to perception, and then discuss why it is thought that SDT theory implies that increasing attention improves performance. Our experiments have shown, however, that this is not necessarily true. Subjects had either focused attention on two of four possible locations in the visual field, or diffused attention to all four locations. The stimuli (offset letters), locations, conditions, and tasks were all known in advance, responses were forced-choice, subjects were properly instructed and motivated, and instructions were always valid—conditions which should optimize signal detection. Relative to diffusing attention, focusing attention indeed benefitted discrimination of forward from backward pointing Es. However, focusing made it harder to identify a randomly chosen one of 20 letters. That focusing can either aid or disrupt performance, even when cues are valid and conditions are idealized, is surprising, but it can also be explained by SDT, as shown here. These results warn the experimental researcher not to confuse focusing attention with enhancing performance, and warn the modeler not to assume that SDT is unequivocal.


1995 ◽  
Vol 40 (10) ◽  
pp. 972-972
Author(s):  
Jerome R. Busemeyer

2003 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shawn C. Stafford ◽  
James L. Szalma ◽  
Peter A. Hancock ◽  
Mustapha Mouloua

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document