September 2019
Volume 19, Issue 10
Open Access
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   September 2019
Comparing visual discrimination and detection: the special status of ‘no’ responses
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Matan Mazor
    Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, University College London
  • Lucie Charles
    Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, University College London
  • Karl J. Friston
    Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, University College London
  • Stephen M. Fleming
    Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging, Institute of Neurology, University College London
    Max Planck UCL Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Aging Research
Journal of Vision September 2019, Vol.19, 142c. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/19.10.142c
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Matan Mazor, Lucie Charles, Karl J. Friston, Stephen M. Fleming; Comparing visual discrimination and detection: the special status of ‘no’ responses. Journal of Vision 2019;19(10):142c. doi: https://doi.org/10.1167/19.10.142c.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Making a decision about whether something is there or not (detection) is qualitatively different from making a decision about what is there (discrimination). A key aspect of detection is the asymmetry in the availability of evidence for ‘yes’ and for ‘no’ responses. While discrimination requires a comparison between the relative evidence for different options, in a detection setting, evidence is only available for the presence of a stimulus and not for its absence. This means that confidence in the absence of a stimulus cannot rely on the magnitude of “evidence for absence” and must instead be based on other information. In line with this conceptual difference, previous studies identified behavioural dissimilarities between ‘yes’ and ‘no’ responses: confidence in ‘no’ responses is generally lower, and is less predictive of objective accuracy (Kanai, Walsh, & Tseng, 2010; Meuwese, van Loon, Lamme, & Fahrenfort, 2014) not only in visual detection but also in detection-like tasks (such as recognition memory; Higham, Perfect, & Bruno, 2009). Here, we set out to further characterise the distinct cognitive processes involved in reporting stimulus absence compared to reporting stimulus presence or identity. We present the results from two psychophysical experiments in which participants were asked to perform detection and discrimination tasks on the same class of stimuli, in different blocks. Although there was no difference in overall accuracy between the two tasks, we find markedly different behavioural signatures for discrimination and detection responses. Specifically, we replicate findings of a weaker relationship between accuracy and confidence for ‘No’ responses (lower area under the type 2 ROC) and show that ‘No’ responses exhibit a weaker negative association between reaction-time and confidence compared to both ‘Yes’ and discrimination responses. We discuss our observations in the context of possible cognitive models, such as unequal-variance SDT and temporal evidence accumulation models.

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×