title: "Utilizing" signal detection theory.
abstract: What do inferring what a person is thinking or feeling, judging a defendant's guilt, and navigating a dimly lit room have in common? They involve perceptual uncertainty (e.g., a scowling face might indicate anger or concentration, for which different responses are appropriate) and behavioral risk (e.g., a cost to making the wrong response). Signal detection theory describes these types of decisions. In this tutorial, we show how incorporating the economic concept of utility allows signal detection theory to serve as a model of optimal decision making, going beyond its common use as an analytic method. This utility approach to signal detection theory clarifies otherwise enigmatic influences of perceptual uncertainty on measures of decision-making performance (accuracy and optimality) and on behavior (an inverse relationship between bias magnitude and sensitivity optimizes utility). A "utilized" signal detection theory offers the possibility of expanding the phenomena that can be understood within a decision-making framework.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Northeastern University s.lynn@neu.edu.
authors.forename: Spencer K
authors.initials: SK
authors.lastname: Lynn
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology, Northeastern University Department of Psychiatry and the Martinos Center for Biomedical Imaging, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, and Harvard Medical School.
authors.forename: Lisa Feldman
authors.initials: LF
authors.lastname: Barrett
mesh_terms: D003657:Decision Making; D006801:Humans; D011582:Psychological Theory; D017603:Signal Detection, Psychological; D035501:Uncertainty
keywords: decision making; perception; signal detection theory; utility
references.citation: Mem Cognit. 2005 Mar;33(2):303-19
references.pmid: 16028585
references.citation: Br J Psychiatry. 2011 Apr;198(4):302-8
references.pmid: 21263011
references.citation: Nature. 2005 Sep 15;437(7057):412-6
references.pmid: 16163357
references.citation: Psychiatry Res. 2014 Sep 30;219(1):198-203
references.pmid: 24814142
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 1976 Dec;60(6):1381-9
references.pmid: 1010890
references.citation: Psychon Bull Rev. 2004 Aug;11(4):616-41
references.pmid: 15581116
references.citation: Evolution. 2005 Jun;59(6):1300-5
references.pmid: 16050106
references.citation: Behav Brain Sci. 2008 Aug;31(4):415-37; discussion 437-87
references.pmid: 18662461
references.citation: Perspect Psychol Sci. 2012 May;7(3):238-59
references.pmid: 26168461
references.citation: Front Neurosci. 2012 Jul 12;6:105
references.pmid: 22807893
references.citation: Science. 2004 Oct 15;306(5695):447-52
references.pmid: 15486291
references.citation: Science. 2004 Dec 10;306(5703):1944-7
references.pmid: 15591205
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn. 1998 Nov;24(6):1397-410
references.pmid: 9835060
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1954 Nov;61(6):401-9
references.pmid: 13215690
references.citation: Psychol Rev. 1961 Sep;68:301-40
references.pmid: 13774292
references.citation: Emotion. 2012 Aug;12(4):726-36
references.pmid: 22251054
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Gen. 1988 Mar;117(1):34-50
references.pmid: 2966230
references.citation: Psychol Sci Public Interest. 2000 May;1(1):1-26
references.pmid: 26151979
references.citation: J Acoust Soc Am. 2003 Mar;113(3):1749-56
references.pmid: 12656407
references.citation: Med Decis Making. 2010 Jan-Feb;30(1):113-22
references.pmid: 19706880
references.citation: Emotion. 2009 Aug;9(4):478-87
references.pmid: 19653768
references.citation: Percept Psychophys. 2001 Feb;63(2):361-76
references.pmid: 11281110
references.citation: Annu Rev Neurosci. 2007;30:535-74
references.pmid: 17600525