English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Can accuracy and response bias in two-stimulus, two-response recognition or detection experiments be measured nonparametrically? Pollack and Norman (1964) answered this question affirmatively for sensitivity, Hodos (1970) for bias: Both proposed measures based on triangular areas in receiver-operating characteristic space. Their papers, and especially a paper by Grier (1971) that provided computing formulas for the measures, continue to be heavily cited in a wide range of content areas. In our sample of articles, most authors described triangle-based measures as making fewer assumptions than measures associated with detection theory. However, we show that statistics based on products or ratios of right triangle areas, including a recently proposed bias index and a not-yetproposed but apparently plausible sensitivity index, are consistent with a decision process based on logistic distributions. Even the Pollack and Norman measure, which is based on non-right triangles, is approximately logistic for low values of sensitivity. Simple geometric models for sensitivity and bias are not nonparametric, even if their implications are not acknowledged in the defining publications.

Triangles in ROC space: History and theory of “nonparametric” measures of sensitivity and response bias