Analyzing coefficients of psychophysical power functions

Rule, Stanley J.

doi:10.3758/bf03211766

Cited by 12 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When the exponent decreased, the constant increased.” Indeed, such is the case in the present study (see Table 5), as indicated by the significant negative correlation between both indices, using two different models for line bisection. However, this is neither an anomaly nor a finding – rather a natural consequence of applying the linear model to the data (Glicksohn, 2007; Rule, 1993).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Performance on Embedded Figures Tests

Glicksohn

Kinberg

2009

Journal of Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined individual performance on an embedded figures test, in two separate studies. Performance measures were both the number (m) of hits (H) and the number of false alarms (FA), and their respective reaction times (RT). Using these measures, we postulated four templates of performance, indicative of field dependence (mH = low, RTH = long, mFA = high), field independence (mH = high, RTH = short, mFA = low), impulsiveness (mH = low, RTH = short, mFA = high), and reflectiveness (mH = high, RTH = long, mFA = low). In the first study, individual profiles were correlated with these four templates, whose mean values were updated in a stepwise manner, under the constraint that the individual profile had to be substantially correlated with the emerging template (r > 0.9). This procedure resulted in the final placement of a total of 64 individuals (80%) into one of the four templates. In the second study, we could identify 87% of the participants in such a manner. These participants also provided us with performance data on the rod-and-frame test (RFT), and a line-bisection task (whose analysis here is innovative), as well as scores on the sensation-seeking scales. We emphasize the utility of adopting such a finely-tuned approach to the study of the disembedding aspect of the cognitive style, and to the profiling of individual differences in general.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 95%

Performance on Embedded Figures Tests

Glicksohn

Kinberg

2009

Journal of Individual Differences

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, these linear relationships are virtually identical for perception and memory; the slopes are -0.337 and -0.388 for perception and memory, respectively, adding further force to the view that memory and perception share common properties. However, these analyses of the relationship between the exponent and the multiplicative constant must be viewed cautiously, because Rule (1993) showed that, in the two-parameter power function, the relationship between these two parameters depends on the units used to measure the physical stimuli. Nevertheless, the commonality of the relationship between exponent and multiplicative constant for perception and memory holds independently of Rule's sage theoretical analyses.…”

Section: Multiplicative Constant Additive Constantmentioning

confidence: 99%

Similarity comparisons with remembered and perceived magnitudes: Memory psychophysics and fundamental measurement

Petrusic

Baranski²,

Kennedy

1998

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At the outset, subjects learned to associate a label with each element in a set of perceptual magnitudes (visual extents), using traditional paired-associate learning methods, Subsequently, on some trials, subjects indicated which pair of two pairs of labels corresponded to the more similar perceptual referents, and, on other trials, they selected the more dissimilar pair. It is shown that these similarity comparisons satisfy the axioms (transitivity and intradimensional subtractivity) necessary to conclude that they are based on computation of the difference of the differences of analogue-based interval scale representations.The findings also permitted refutation of the idea that memory for elementary percepts arises from their reperception. Notably,the memory exponent was 0.697, but the perception exponent was 0,546, and the reperception idea requires that the memory exponent be the square of the perception exponent (0.546 2 = 0.298). Symbolic distance effects and enhanced response time-based semantic congruity effects, typicallyfound with binary comparisons, extend the range of commonalties found between perceptual and memory psychophysics.Memory psychophysics extends Fechner's (1860/1966) outer psychophysics to a determination of the quantitative relationship between the physical magnitude of a stimulus and its subjective magnitude-not as it is perceived but, rather, as it is remembered. In this article, we explore the properties of the representation oflong-term memory for elementary visual percepts and the representation of the percept itself, and we examine their interrelationships in detail. We begin with a brief review of the principal findings based on the application of classical psychophysical techniques to remembered stimuli, and we discuss some of the limitations of that work. We then address the fundamental question of whether a memorial This research was supported by a grant from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada to W.M.P. Portions of this work were presented at the XXV International Congress of Psychology, Brussels, July, 1992 . The experiment was conducted by R.K. as part of her master's degree requirements at the Department of Psycho 1-ogy, Carleton University. Our thanks to Geoffrey Loftus, Gregory Lockhead, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. Correspondence should be addressed to W. M. Petrusic, Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Colonel By Drive, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5B6, Canada (e-mail: biILpetrusic@carleton.ca).-Accepted by previous editor, Geoffrey R. Loftus representation of a basic element of sensory experience can be maintained in memory at the level of an interval scale, by extending the axiomatic approach offundamental measurement (Krantz, Luce, Suppes, & Tversky, 1971) to the domain of memory psychophysics by requiring comparative judgments ofsimilarity/dissimilarity. Specifically, the subjects were presented with two pairs of pairs (quads) and were required, on some trials, to indicate which pair was more similar and, o...

show abstract

“…For example, Equation 6 shows that the proportionality constant α depends on three factors: the reference response (N 0 ) chosen by the participant, the reference sensation chosen by the participant, and the choice of units of measurement for the stimulus (which determines S 0 ). The effect of arbitrary units of measurement was noted by Rule (1993) as a reason why the intercept (i.e., log α) is not simply a subjective unit of measurement. This is clearly shown by Equation 6, in that the proportionality constant is α ϭ N 0 /S 0 β , which shows that α depends on the units of measurement for the physical stimulus (through S 0 ).…”

Section: Magnitude Estimationmentioning

confidence: 99%

On bias in magnitude scaling and some conjectures of Stevens

DeCarlo

2005

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Analyzing coefficients of psychophysical power functions

Cited by 12 publications

References 15 publications

Performance on Embedded Figures Tests

Performance on Embedded Figures Tests

Similarity comparisons with remembered and perceived magnitudes: Memory psychophysics and fundamental measurement

On bias in magnitude scaling and some conjectures of Stevens

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About