A criterion-shift model for enhanced discriminability in perceptual identification: A note on the counter model

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, Dec 2000

The original version of the counter model for perceptual identification (Ratcliff & McKoon, 1997) assumed that word frequency and prior study act solely to bias the identification process (i.e., subjects have a tendency to prefer high-frequency and studied low-frequency words, irrespective of the presented word). In a recent study, using a two-alternative forced-choice paradigm, we showed an enhanced discriminability effect for high-frequency and studied low-frequency words (Wagenmakers, Zeelenberg, & Raaijmakers, 2000). These results have led to a fundamental modification of the counter model: Prior study and high frequency not only result in bias, but presumably also result in a higher rate of feature extraction (i.e., better perception). We demonstrate that a criterion-shift model, assuming limited perceptual information extracted from the flash as well as a reduced distance to an identification threshold for high-frequency and studied low-frequency words, can also account for enhanced discriminability.

A PDF file should load here. If you do not see its contents the file may be temporarily unavailable at the journal website or you do not have a PDF plug-in installed and enabled in your browser.

Alternatively, you can download the file locally and open with any standalone PDF reader:

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758%2FBF03213012.pdf

A criterion-shift model for enhanced discriminability in perceptual identification: A note on the counter model

JEROEN G. W. RAAIJMAKERS 0 1 2 3 0 University ofAmsterdam , Amsterdam, The Netherlands 1 LAEL J. SCHOOLER Pennsylvania State University, University Park , Pennsylvania 2 ERIC-JAN M. WAGENMAKERS and RENE ZEELENBERG University ofAmsterdam , Amsterdam, The Netherlands 3 Rene Zeelenberg was supported by a grant from the Foundation for Behavioral and Social Sciences of the Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research. We thank Rich Shiffrin for helpful discussions and this article can be addressed to E.-J. M. Wagenmakers or R. Zeelenberg, Department of Psychonomics , Roetersstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands ( A criterion-shift model for enhanced discriminability in perceptual identification: A note on the connter model The original version ofthe counter modeljor perceptual identification (Ratcliff & McKoon, 1997) assumed that word frequency and prior study act solely to bias the identification process (i.e., subjects have a tendency to prefer high-frequency and studied low-frequency words, irrespective of the presented word). In a recent study, using a two-alternative forced-choice paradigm, we showed an enhanced discriminability effect for high-frequency and studied low-frequency words (Wagenmakers, Zeelenberg, & Raaijmakers, 2000). These results have led to a fundamental modification of the counter model: Prior study and high frequency not only result in bias, but presumably also result in a higher rate offeature extraction (i. e., better perception). We demonstrate that a criterion-shift model, assuming limited perceptual information extracted from theflash as well as a reduced distance to an identification threshold for high-frequency and studied low-frequency words, can also account for enhanced discriminability. - sentation of the response alternatives LIED and DIED), Rat cliff and McKoon claimed that subjects tended to prefer the studied alternative, regardless of whether that alterna tive had been flashed or not. Such a tendency would lead to benefits when the target (e.g., LIED) had been studied, but to costs when the foil (e.g., DIED) had been studied. Further, they found that the size ofthe benefits about equaled the size of the costs (e.g., Ratcliff, Allbritton, & McKoon, 1997; Rouder, Ratcliff, & McKoon, 2000). Hence, the effect of prior study was supposed to reflect a bias rather than some kind of enhancedperceptualprocessing of the flashed word.I Additional evidence for this idea came from the observation that even if performance was at chance when neither alter native was studied, effects of prior study were still present and thus appeared to be independent of information ex tracted from the flashed stimulus. Similarly, subjects had a preference to choose a high-frequency (HF) alternative such as MILE over a low-frequency (LF) alternative such as TILE. Therefore, effects of word frequency were likewise at tributed solely to bias. Importantly, the biases for prior study and word frequency are supposedly mediated by dif ferent mechanisms, an issue debated by Wagenmakers, Zeelenberg, and Raaijmakers (2000). We will return to this later. For ease of reference, we will term the original ver sion of the counter model the counter model I. The counter model I is one of the few models to pro vide a quantitative account of repetition priming effects in visual word identification. The model successfully ac counted for the effects of prior study and word frequency in three different word identification tasks: naming (or free response identification), forced-choice identifica tion, and yes-no identification. Recent studies by Bowers (1999) and Wagenmakers et al. (2000), however, have shown that the counter model made some incorrect pre dictions. First, in a two-alternative forced choice para digm, a choice between two HF alternatives was found to be more accurate than a choice between two LF alterna tives. Second, prior study of both alternatives improved performance, albeit only for LF words. These results sug gest problems for the counter model I, because it does not predict that prior study and word frequency affect the sub ject's ability to discriminate between the target and foil stimulus. In order to explain the enhanced discriminabil ity effect for studied and HF words, McKoon and Ratcliff (in press; Ratcliff & McKoon, 2000) proposed a modifi cation of the counter model. The new version of the counter model assumes that HF words as well as studied LF words, apart from having an advantage due to bias, also have a higher value ofps. The parameter ps denotes the probability of detecting information that enables one to discriminate between the target and the foil (e.g., the first letter of the LIED-DIED pair). We will term this mod ified model the counter model II. Recently, two-alternative forced-choice procedure ad vocated by Ratcliff and McKoon (e.g., Huber, Shiffrin, Lyle, & Ruys, in press) has been adopted in several prim ing studies. One ofthe main advantages of this procedure is (...truncated)


This is a preview of a remote PDF: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.3758%2FBF03213012.pdf

Eric-Jan M. Wagenmakers, René Zeelenberg, Lael J. Schooler, Jeroen G. W. Raaijmakers. A criterion-shift model for enhanced discriminability in perceptual identification: A note on the counter model, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2000, pp. 718-726, Volume 7, Issue 4, DOI: 10.3758/BF03213012