Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-g4pgd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-26T15:22:26.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How did that individual make that perceptual decision?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 January 2019

David A. Booth
David A. Booth*
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Falmer, Brighton BN1 9QH, United Kingdom. d.a.booth@sussex.ac.ukwww.sussex.ac.uk/profiles/335100
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Suboptimality of decision making needs no explanation. High-level accounts of suboptimality in diverse tasks cannot add up to a mechanistic theory of perceptual decision making. Mental processes operate on the contents of information brought by the experimenter and the participant to the task, not on the amount of information in the stimuli without regard to physical and social context.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 41 , 2018 , e226
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2018 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Booth, D. A. (2015) Scientific measurement of sensory preferences using stimulus tetrads. Journal of Sensory Studies 30:108–27. doi:10.1111/joss.12143.Google Scholar
Booth, D. A. (2017) How a mind works. Contrasts with twentieth century psychology. Working paper, University of Sussex. doi:10.13140/RG.2.2.21854.74564.Google Scholar
Booth, D. A. & Freeman, R. P. J. (1993) Discriminative feature integration by individuals. Acta Psychologica 84:1–16.Google Scholar
Booth, D. A., Freeman, R. P. J., Konle, M., Wainwright, C. J. & Sharpe, O. (2011a) Perception as interacting psychophysical functions. Could the configuring of features replace a specialised receptor? Perception 40:509–29.Google Scholar
Booth, D. A., Higgs, S., Schneider, J. & Klinkenberg, I. (2010) Learned liking versus inborn delight. Can sweetness give sensual pleasure or is it just motivating? Psychological Science 21:1656–63. doi:10.1177/0956797610385356.Google Scholar
Booth, D. A., Sharpe, O., Freeman, R. P. J. & Conner, M. T. (2011b) Insight into sight, touch, taste and smell by multiple discriminations from norm. Seeing and Perceiving 24:485–511. doi:10.1163/187847511X588773.Google Scholar
Conner, M. T., Haddon, A. V., Pickering, E. S. & Booth, D. A. (1988) Sweet tooth demonstrated: Individual differences in preference for both sweet foods and foods highly sweetened. Journal of Applied Psychology 73:275–80.Google Scholar
Conner, M. T., Land, D. G. & Booth, D. A. (1987) Effects of stimulus range on judgments of sweetness intensity in a lime drink. British Journal of Psychology 78:357–64.Google Scholar
Luce, R. D. (2013) Analogs in Luce's global psychophysical theory of Stevens's psychophysical regression effect. American Journal of Psychology 126:47–52.Google Scholar
Poulton, E. C. (1989) Bias in quantifying judgements. Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
Shannon, C. E. & Weaver, W. (1949) The mathematical theory of information. University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Stewart, N., Brown, G. D. A. & Chater, N. (2005) Absolute identification by relative judgment. Psychological Review 112:881–911.Google Scholar