1958
DOI: 10.1080/00223980.1958.9916259
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Two Generalized Ratio Scaling Methods

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
59
0
1

Year Published

1968
1968
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 161 publications
(63 citation statements)
references
References 6 publications
3
59
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…In the subjective metric, the model for the fractionation task is simply Under this assumption, the observed variable duration should be proportional to the standard duration, regardless of the value of the exponent in the psychophysical function. This striking relation, due to Ekman (1958), has been well supported in virtually every study that has used the fractionation technique for judgments of duration. Thus, existing data support the joint assumption that the underlying fractionation model of Equation 2 is correct, and that the psychophysical function is a power function.…”
Section: The Methods Of Fractionationmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…In the subjective metric, the model for the fractionation task is simply Under this assumption, the observed variable duration should be proportional to the standard duration, regardless of the value of the exponent in the psychophysical function. This striking relation, due to Ekman (1958), has been well supported in virtually every study that has used the fractionation technique for judgments of duration. Thus, existing data support the joint assumption that the underlying fractionation model of Equation 2 is correct, and that the psychophysical function is a power function.…”
Section: The Methods Of Fractionationmentioning
confidence: 80%
“…One way. first mentioned by Ekman (1958) ..... -iS to rescale. the stimulus in terms of level above threshold: if a constant magnitude.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Th e seq uence of work load s was chosen in such a way that when a subject had comp ared each load with the immediately preceding load , he had performed all possible pair wise comparison s between the load s. Since the sequence of the work load s was also perform ed in reverse order, a complete ma tri x of relati ve comparisons between case weights was obtained for each subject. On the basis of these matrices, a scale of perceived work load was calcul ated fo r each subject acco rding to Ekman (9). With the same methods, a subjective scale was also calculated for all the subjects o n the basis of a ratio matrix of geometric mean values.…”
Section: Magnitude Estima T Ion (Melmentioning
confidence: 99%