Abstract
Eight subjects performed a probablistic information integration task in which multiple cues, in favor of either of two competing hypotheses were presented. The cues varied in their reliability and their diagnostic value in choosing between the hypotheses. Primary interest focussed on the comparison of digital and analog-graphical displays, and upon sources of non-optimality in the information integration process. Generally the analog displays proved superior to the digital, and performance was better when information was presented at a more rapid rate. Subjects appeared to be non-optimal in their treatment of reliability vs. diagnosticity. However, departures from optimality related to serial position effects and to the use of the appropriate model of information integration were not observed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.