Signal Detection Theory

33
Signal Detection Theory March 25, 2010

description

Signal Detection Theory. March 25, 2010. Phonetics Fun, Ltd. Check it out: http://sakurakoshimizu.blogspot.com/. Another Brick in the Wall. Another interesting finding which has been used to argue for the “speech is special” theory is duplex perception . Take an isolated F3 transition:. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transcript of Signal Detection Theory

Page 1: Signal Detection Theory

Signal Detection Theory

March 25, 2010

Page 3: Signal Detection Theory

Another Brick in the Wall• Another interesting finding which has been used to argue for the “speech is special” theory is duplex perception.

• Take an isolated F3 transition:

and present it to one ear…

Page 4: Signal Detection Theory

Do the Edges First!• While presenting this spectral frame to the other ear:

Page 5: Signal Detection Theory

Two Birds with One Spectrogram

• The resulting combo is perceived in duplex fashion:

• One ear hears the F3 “chirp”;

• The other ear hears the combined stimulus as “da”.

Page 6: Signal Detection Theory

Duplex Interpretation• Check out the spectrograms in Praat.

• Mann and Liberman (1983) found:

• Discrimination of the F3 chirps is gradient when they’re in isolation…

• but categorical when combined with the spectral frame.

• (Compare with the F3 discrimination experiment with Japanese and American listeners)

• Interpretation: the “special” speech processor puts the two pieces of the spectrogram together.

Page 7: Signal Detection Theory

Some Psychometrics!• Response data from a perception experiment is usually organized in the form of a confusion matrix.

• Data from Peterson & Barney (1952)

• Each row corresponds to the stimulus category

• Each column corresponds to the response category

Page 8: Signal Detection Theory

Detection• In a detection task (as opposed to an identification task), listeners are asked to determine whether or not a signal was present in a stimulus.

• For example--do the following clips contain release bursts?

• Potential response categories:

SignalResponse

Hit: Present (in stimulus) “Present”

Miss: Present “Absent”

False Alarm: Absent “Present”

Correct Rejection: Absent “Absent”

Page 9: Signal Detection Theory

Confusion, Simplified• For a detection task, the confusion matrix boils down to just two stimulus types and response options…

(Response Options)

Present Absent

Present Hit Miss

Absent False Alarm Correct Rejection

(Stim Types)

• Notice that a bias towards “present” responses will increase totals of both hits and false alarms.

• Likewise, a bias towards “absent” responses will increase the number of both misses and correct rejections.

Page 10: Signal Detection Theory

Canned Examples• From the text: in session 1, listeners are rewarded for “hits”. The resultant confusion matrix looks like this:

Present Absent

Present 82 18

Absent 46 54

• The “correct” responses (in bold) = 82 + 54 = 136

Page 11: Signal Detection Theory

Canned Examples• In session 2, the listeners are rewarded for “correct rejections”…

Present Absent

Present 55 45

Absent 19 81

• The “correct” responses (in bold) = 55+ 81 = 136

• Moral of the story: simply counting the number of “correct responses” does not satisfactorily tell you what the listener is doing…

• And response bias is not determined by what they can or cannot perceive in the signal.

Page 12: Signal Detection Theory

Detection Theory• Signal Detection Theory: a “parametric” model that predicts when and why listeners respond with each of the four different response types in a detection task.

• “Parametric” = response proportions are derived from underlying parameters

• Assumption #1: listeners base response decisions on the amount of evidence they perceive in the stimulus for the presence of a signal.

• Evidence = gradient variable.

perceptual evidence

Page 13: Signal Detection Theory

The Criterion• Assumption #2: listeners respond positively when the amount of perceptual evidence exceeds some internal criterion measure.

perceptual evidence

criterion ()

“present” responses“absent” responses

• evidence > criterion “present” response

• evidence < criterion “absent” response

Page 14: Signal Detection Theory

The Distribution• Assumption #3: the amount of perceived evidence for a particular stimulus varies randomly…

• and the variation is distributed normally.

perceptual evidence

Frequency

The categorization of a particular stimulus will vary between trials.

Page 15: Signal Detection Theory

Normal Facts• The normal distribution is defined by two parameters:

• mean (= “average”) ()

• standard deviation ()

• The mean = center point of values in the distribution

• The standard deviation = “spread” of values around the mean in the distribution.

standard deviation standard deviation

Page 16: Signal Detection Theory

Comparisons• Assumption #4: responses to both “absent” and “present” stimuli in a detection task will be distributed normally.

• Generally speaking:

• the mean of the “present” distribution will be higher on the evidence scale than that of the “absent” distribution.

• Assumption #5: both “absent” and “present” distributions will have the same standard deviation.

• (This is the simplest version of the model.)

Page 17: Signal Detection Theory

Interpretationcorrect rejections false alarms

misses hitscriterion

Important: the criterion level is the same for both types of stimuli…

…but the means of the two distributions differ

Page 18: Signal Detection Theory

Sensitivity• The perceptual distance between the means of the

distributions reflects the listener’s sensitivity to the distinction.

• Q: How can we estimate this distance?

• A: We measure the distance of the criterion from each mean.

• In normal distributions, this distance:

• determines the proportion of responses on either side of the criterion

• This distance = the criterion’s “z-score”

Page 19: Signal Detection Theory

Z-Scores

• Example 1: criterion at the mean

• Z-score = 0

• 50% hits, 50% misses

HitsMisses

Page 20: Signal Detection Theory

Z-Scores

• Example 2: criterion one standard deviation below the mean

• Z-score = -1

• 84.1% hits, 15.9% misses

HitsMisses

Page 21: Signal Detection Theory

Z-Scores

• Note: P(Hits) = 1-P(Misses)

• z(P(Hits)) = z(1-P(Misses)) = -z(P(Misses))

• In this case: z(84.1) = -z(15.9) = 1

HitsMisses

Page 22: Signal Detection Theory

D-Prime• D-prime (d’) is a measure of sensitivity.

• = perceptual distance between the means of the “present” and “absent” distributions.

• This perceptual distance is expressed in terms of z-scores.

d’sn

Page 23: Signal Detection Theory

D-Prime

d’sn

Hits

• d’ combines the z-score for the percentage of hits…

Page 24: Signal Detection Theory

D-Prime

z(P(H))sn

Hits

• d’ combines the z-score for the percentage of hits…

• with the z-score for the percentage of false alarms.

False Alarms

-z(P(FA))

• d’ = z(P(H)) - z(P(FA))

Page 25: Signal Detection Theory

D-Prime Examples1. Present Absent

Present 82 18

Absent 46 54

d’ = z(P(H)) - z(P(FA)) = z(.82) - z(.46) = .915 - (-.1) = 1.015

2. Present Absent

Present 55 45

Absent 19 81

d’ = z(P(H)) - z(P(FA)) = z(.55) - z(.19) = .125 - (-.878) = 1.003

• Note: there is no absolute meaning to the value of d-prime

• Also: NORMSINV() is the Excel function that converts percentages to z-scores.

Page 26: Signal Detection Theory

Near Zero Correction• Note: the z-score is undefined at 100% and 0%.

• Fix: replace those scores with a minimal deviation from the limit (.5% or 99.5%)

• Present Absent

Present 100 0

Absent 72 28

d’ = z(P(H)) - z(P(FA)) = z(.995) - z(.72) = 2.57 - .58 = 1.99

Page 27: Signal Detection Theory

Calculating Bias• An unbiased criterion would fall halfway between the means of both distributions.

• No bias: P (Hits) = P (Correct Rejections)

• Bias: P (Hits) != P (Correct Rejections)

u

b

Page 28: Signal Detection Theory

Calculating Bias• Bias = distance (in z-scores) between the ideal criterion and the actual criterion

• Bias () = -1/2 * (z(P(H)) + z(P(FA)))

u

b

Page 29: Signal Detection Theory

For Instance Let’s say: d’ = 2

• An unbiased criterion would be one standard deviation from both means…

z(P(H)) = 1z(P(FA)) = -1

• z(P(H)) = 1 P(H) = 84.1%

• z(P(FA)) = -1 P(FA) = 15.9%

Page 30: Signal Detection Theory

Wink Wink, Nudge Nudge Now let’s move the criterion over 1/2 a standard deviation…

z(P(H)) = 1.5z(P(FA)) = -.5

• z(P(H)) = 1.5 P(H) = 93.3% (cf. 84.1%)

• z(P(FA)) = -.5 P(FA) = 30.9% (cf. 15.9%)

• Bias () = -1/2 * (z(P(H)) + z(P(FA)))

= -1/2 * (1.5 + (-.5)) = -1/2 * (1) = -.5

Page 31: Signal Detection Theory

Calculating Bias: Examples1. Present Absent

Present 82 18

Absent 46 54

= -1/2 * (z(P(H)) + z(P(FA)) = -1/2 * (z(.82) + z(.46)) = -1/2 * (.915 + (-.1)) = -.407

2. Present Absent

Present 55 45

Absent 19 81

= -1/2 * (z(P(H)) + z(P(FA)) = -1/2 * (z(.55) + z(.19)) = -1/2 * (.125 + (-.878)) = .376

• The higher the criterion is set, the more positive this number will be.

Page 32: Signal Detection Theory

Same/Different Example• With some caveats, the signal detection paradigm can be applied to identification or discrimination tasks, as well.

• AX Discrimination data (from the CP task):

Pair Same Different Pair Same Different

1-1 96 2 1-3 73 25

3-3 90 8

• We can combine the same pairs (1-1 and 3-3) to form the necessary same/different confusion matrix:

Same Diff.

Same 186 10

Diff. 73 25

Page 33: Signal Detection Theory

Same/Different Example• Let’s assume:

• Hits = Same responses to Same pairs

• False Alarms = Diff. responses to Same pairs

Same Diff. Total %(Same)

Same 186 10 196 94.9%

Diff. 73 25 98 74.5%

• z(P(H)) = z(94.9) = 1.635

• z(P(FA)) = z(74.5) = .659

• d’ = z(P(H)) - z(P(FA)) = 1.635 - .659 = .977

• = -1/2*(z(P(H)) + z(P(FA)) = -.5*(1.635 + .659) = -1.147