The relation between the generalized matching law and signal-detection theory.

Harris et al. (1978) wrote a math paper, not an experiment. They took the generalized matching law and reworked it into signal-detection language.

The goal was to show that choice bias in matching equations is the same thing as response bias in signal-detection theory.

The authors proved you can swap symbols. The bias term in the matching law equals the bias term in signal-detection theory.

No new data were collected; the paper is pure theory.

Prelec (1984) is a direct successor. It keeps the same framework but adds a cleaner math proof and an explicit bias coefficient.

Michael (1988) extends the idea into the real world. It tells practitioners to use reinforcer ratios to shift client time toward adaptive tasks.

Neuringer et al. (2007) gives the theory a social twist. Their data show that response patterns matching reinforcer rates look voluntary to observers.

You now have one formula that covers both choice and detection. When a client shows bias toward one task, you can treat it like a signal-detection problem: adjust reinforcer rate to move the bias, then check if the shift looks natural to caregivers.