2000
DOI: 10.1006/jmps.1999.1240
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Differential Geometric Description of the Relationships among Perceptions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2006
2006

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

2
4

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Also, providing a meaningful context appears to inoculate letter strings against the impacts of physical degradation (e.g., Prinzmetal, 1992), and orienting instructions that emphasize the meaningful nature of the task display can actually attenuate the potent effects of stimulus frequency (e.g., Strongman & Brown, 1966). If one assumes that meaning is functionally related to the level of familiarity one possesses with a particular class of stimuli (as in Tong & Nakayama, 1999), then there are also some provocative examples of how observers' ethnicity can influence their ability to perform visual search tasks with faces of individuals from other races (e.g., D. N. Levin, 2000;D. T. Levin, 1996; D. T. Levin & Angelone, 2001).…”
Section: Visual Search and The Effects Of Stimulus Organizationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Also, providing a meaningful context appears to inoculate letter strings against the impacts of physical degradation (e.g., Prinzmetal, 1992), and orienting instructions that emphasize the meaningful nature of the task display can actually attenuate the potent effects of stimulus frequency (e.g., Strongman & Brown, 1966). If one assumes that meaning is functionally related to the level of familiarity one possesses with a particular class of stimuli (as in Tong & Nakayama, 1999), then there are also some provocative examples of how observers' ethnicity can influence their ability to perform visual search tasks with faces of individuals from other races (e.g., D. N. Levin, 2000;D. T. Levin, 1996; D. T. Levin & Angelone, 2001).…”
Section: Visual Search and The Effects Of Stimulus Organizationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Differential geometric descriptions of the perceptual space, excluding the large body of work on binocular depth perception where geometry is substantively involved (Luneburg, 1947;Smith, 1959;Indow, 1982Indow, , 1991, have recently been applied to the discrimination and comparison of stimuli in multi-dimensional setting invoking the notion of affine connection for vector comparison (Yamazaki, 1987;Levine, 2000), the emergence of perceptual oneness in segregated objects invoking the notion of intrinsic parallelism (Zhang & Wu, 1990;Zhang, 1995), the perception of complex visual stimuli through infinite-dimensional analysis (Townsend, Solomon, & Smith, 2001), and the characterization of perceptual distance in the large via local measurement of stimulus discrimination using the Finsler geometry approach (Dzhafarov & Colonius, 1999. Here, in the same spirit, the foundation of comparative judgment between a probe (comparison stimulus) and a referent (reference stimulus) is investigated, with a special interest in the issue of asymmetry in comparison.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…On the other hand, if two devices have experienced stimulus trajectories with different velocity covariance matrices (e.g., trajectories drawn from different statistical distributions), they will not agree on all statements about relative stimulus locations. For example, there will be striking disagreements if the trajectory-derived metric of one machine is flat and the trajectoryderived metric of the other one is curved 1 .…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Observers will often have a definite sense about whether the relationship between A and B is the same (or is not the same) as the relationship between C and D; i.e., whether A:B = C:D or not. A series of such perceived analogies can be concatenated in order to describe relationships between two "distant" stimuli, by specifying how one stimulus can be transformed into the other 1 . Figure 2 shows an example in which an observer describes stimulus E as being related to stimuli A, B, and C by a succession of analogous stimulus transformations: "E is the stimulus that is produced by starting with stimulus A and performing three transformations perceptually equivalent to the C A → transformation, followed by two transformations perceptually equivalent to the B A → transformation".…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%