Contraction Bias in Memorial Quantifying Judgment: Does It Come from a Stable Compressed Memory Representation or a Dynamic Adaptation Process?

Jou, Jerwen; Leka, Gary E; Rogers, Dawn M.; Matus, Yolanda E.

doi:10.2307/4148991

Cited by 16 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We attribute a resultant narrowing of the response range as a progressive propensity to estimate values towards a value (mean, median or preferred), quantified as the level of minimum estimation error bias, due to the necessity of using memory to recall DR and allocating a given stimulus intensity within it. This phenomenon has been described previously as contraction bias (Jou et al 2004) and underlines the difficulty of recalling DR as well as relating present stimulus intensity with an accurately recalled DR (Baird 1997). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Electrotactile stimulation on the tongue: Intensity perception, discrimination, and cross-modality estimation

Lozano

Kaczmarek

Santello

2009

Somatosensory & Motor Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Due to its high sensitivity and conductivity, electrotactile stimulation (ETS) on the tongue has proven to be a useful and technically convenient tool to substitute and/or augment sensory capabilities. However, most of its applications have only provided spatial attributes and little is known about (a) the ability of the tongue's sensory system to process electrical stimuli of varying magnitudes and (b) how modulation of ETS intensity affects subjects' ability to decode stimulus intensity. We addressed these questions by quantifying: (1) the magnitude of the dynamic range (DR; maximal comfortable intensity/perception threshold) and its sensitivity to prolonged exposure; (2) subjects' ability to perceive intensity changes; and (3) subjects' ability to associate intensity with angular excursions of a protractor's handle. We found that the average DR (17 dB) was generally large in comparison with other tactile loci and of a relatively constant magnitude among subjects, even after prolonged exposure, despite a slight but significant upward drift (P < 0.001). Additionally, our results showed that as stimulus intensity increased, subjects' ability to discriminate ETS stimuli of different intensities improved (P < 0.05) while estimation accuracy, in general, slightly decreased (increasing underestimation). These results suggest that higher ETS intensity may increase recruitment of rapidly adapting mechanoreceptor fibers, as these are specialized for coding stimulus differences rather than absolute intensities. Furthermore, our study revealed that the tongue's sensory system can effectively convey electrical stimuli despite minimal practice and when information transfer is limited by memory and DR drift.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Electrotactile stimulation on the tongue: Intensity perception, discrimination, and cross-modality estimation

Lozano

Kaczmarek

Santello

2009

Somatosensory & Motor Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, Bradley and Vido (1984) showed that people underestimated spatial distance between two objects when they based their judgment on memory of the objects, whereas Wearden and Ferrara (1993) showed that people tended to underestimate a sample duration that they had memorized a few (1-16) seconds beforehand (see also Casasanto & Boroditsky, 2008). Second, the representations of time and other physical magnitudes are both susceptible to regression towards the mean (also known as the contraction bias, Poulton, 1979, or Vierordt's law, Gu & Meck, 2011, with overestimation for magnitudes under the mean and underestimation for magnitudes above the mean (Ashourian & Loewenstein, 2011;Jou et al, 2004;Tresilian, Mon-Williams, & Kelly, 1999). For example, Tresilian et al (1999) showed that, when asked to reproduce the distance of an object, people overreproduced distances for objects that were near but under-reproduced distances for objects that were further away, while Jazayeri and Shadlen (2010) similarly found that people respectively over-and under-reproduce short and long durations.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

On magnitudes in memory: An internal clock account of space–time interaction

Cai

Connell

2016

Acta Psychologica

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditionally, research on time perception has diverged into a representational approach that focuses on the interaction between time and non-temporal magnitude information like spatial distance, and a mechanistic approach that emphasizes the workings and timecourse of components within an internal clock. We combined these approaches in order to identify the locus of space-time interaction effects in the mechanistic framework of the internal clock model. In three experiments, we contrasted the effects of spatial distance (a long- vs. short-distance line) on time perception with those of visual flicker (a flickering vs. static stimulus) in a duration reproduction paradigm. We found that both a flickering stimulus and a long-distance line lengthened reproduced time when presented during time encoding. However, when presented during time reproduction, a flickering stimulus shortened reproduced time but a long-distance line had no effect. The results thus show that, while visual flickers affects duration accumulation itself, spatial distance instead biases the memory of the accumulated duration. These findings are consistent with a clock-magnitude account of space-time interaction whereby both temporal duration and spatial distance are represented as mental magnitudes that can interfere with each other while being kept in memory, and places the locus of interaction between temporal and non-temporal magnitude dimensions at the memory maintenance stage of the internal clock model.

show abstract

“…2 There is a natural tendency to shift the sensation in memory toward the middle of a scale of intensities; participants performing estimation tasks are not certain about the true values of the stimuli and therefore keep their estimates well within the boundaries (or ranges) of stimulus values. 3 The second reason arises from the observation that the results of previous studies demonstrate a high degree of subjectivity in preferred illuminances and that test participants' results are approximately equally distributed across the entire stimulus range (see, e.g. Figure 2 in Jusle´n et al 4 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%