According to signal-detection theory uncertainty about features of a signal causes performance to decline. Traditionally, cues have been used to reduce uncertainty about the signals to be detected. Cues can be introduced either before (precues) or after (postcues) the observation interval. While precues have repeatedly been shown to improve performance, the results when using postcues have been unclear. An experiment was performed in which auditory postcues were introduced into a two-frequency uncertainty detection paradigm. A yes-no psychophysical method was employed. The postcued condition produced significantly better detectability than that of the uncued control condition.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
EganJ. P.LindnerW. A.McFaddenD.Masking-level difference and the form of the psychometric function. Perception & Psychophysics, 1969, 4, 209–215.
2.
GilliomJ. D.MillsW. M.Information extraction from contralateral cues in the detection of signals of uncertain frequency. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1976, 59, 1428–1433.
3.
GilliomJ. D.TaylorD. W.ClineC.Should an informational cue precede or follow the signal event: Results with a contralateral cue in an uncertain frequency paradigm. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1977, 61, S62(A).
4.
GreenD. M.Detection of auditory sinusoids of uncertain frequency. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1961, 33, 897–903.
5.
GreenD. M.McKeyM. H.LickliderJ. C. R.Detection of a pulsed sinusoid in noise as a function of frequency. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1959, 31, 1446–1452.
6.
GreenD. M.SwetsJ. A.Signal detection theory and psychophysics. Huntington, NY: Krieger, 1966.
7.
JohnsonD. M.HafterE. R.Uncertain-frequency detection: Cuing and condition of observation. Perception & Psychophysics, 1980, 28, 143–149.
8.
JohnsonD. M.WatsonC. S.KellyW. J.Performance differences among the intervals in forced-choice tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 1984, 35, 553–557.
9.
KinchlaR. A.Selective processes in sensory memory: A probe-comparison procedure. In KornblumS. (Ed.), Attention and performance IV. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Pp. 87–99.
10.
RunyonR. P.HaberA.Fundamentals of behavioral statistics. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley, 1977.
SwetsJ. A.SewallS. T.Stimulus vs. response uncertainty in recognition. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1961, 33, 1586–1592.
13.
TaylorM. M.Detectability theory and the interpretation of vigilance data. Acta Psychologia, 1967, 27, 390–399.
14.
TaylorM. M.ClarkeD. P. J.Monaural detection with contralateral cue (MDCC): II. Interaural delay of cue and signal. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1971, 49, 1243–1253.
15.
TaylorM. M.ClarkeD. P. J.SmithS. M.Monaural detection with contralateral cue (MDCC): III. Sinusoidal signals at a constant performance level. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1971, 49, 1795–1804.
16.
TaylorM. M.ForbesS. M.Monaural detection with contralateral cue (MDCC): I. Better than energy detector performance by human observers. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1969, 46, 1519–1526.
17.
TaylorM. M.SmithS. M.ClarkeD. P. J.Monaural detection with contralateral cue (MDCC): IV. Psychometric functions with sinusoidal signals. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1971, 50, 1151–1161.
18.
VeniarF. A.Signal detection as a function of frequency ensemble: I. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1958, 30, 1020–1024. (a)
19.
VeniarF. A.Signal detection as a function of frequency ensemble: II. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1958, 30, 1075–1078. (b)
