Deciding between accounts of the selection task: A reply to Oaksford (2002)

Aidan Feeney*, Simon Handley, Robert W. Kentridge

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalReview articlepeer-review

5 Citations (Scopus)


In this paper we report on our attempts to fit the optimal data selection (ODS) model (Oaksford & Chater, 1994; Oaksford, Chater, & Larkin, 2000) to the selection task data reported in Feeney and Handley (2000) and Handley, Feeney, and Harper (2002). Although Oaksford (2002b) reports good fits to the data described in Feeney and Handley (2000), the model does not adequately capture the data described in Handley et al. (2002). Furthermore, across all six of the experiments modelled here, the ODS model does not predict participants' behaviour at the level of selection rates for individual cards. Finally, when people's probability estimates are used in the modelling exercise, the model adequately captures only 1 out of 18 conditions described in Handley et al. We discuss the implications of these results for models of the selection task and claim that they support deductive, rather than probabilistic, accounts of the task.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)1079-1088
Number of pages10
JournalQuarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A: Human Experimental Psychology
Volume56 A
Issue number6
Publication statusPublished - Aug 2003
Externally publishedYes


Dive into the research topics of 'Deciding between accounts of the selection task: A reply to Oaksford (2002)'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this