Effects of single-session repetitive judgments on magnitude estimation scales for lingual vibrotactile sensation

Petrosino, Linda; Fucci, Donald; Harris, Daniel M.

doi:10.3758/bf03207565

Cited by 29 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example , Verrillo and Chamberlain (1971) compared the psychophysical power function curve of a single observer with that obtained from the same observer 3 years later. Both the slopes and the numerical magnitude estimates were nearly identical in the two session s. Also , Petrosino, Fucci , and Harris (1985) showed good agreement between the magnitude estimate functions obtained …”

supporting

confidence: 57%

Individual differences in magnitude estimates of inferred, remembered, and perceived geographical distance

Silva

Ruiz

Marques

1987

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three separate groups of observers made magnitude estimates of intercity distance in two sessions separated by an interval of 1 month. The first group of observers estimated intercity distance from memory, using just general knowledge of Brazilian geography (inferred distance). The second group estimated intercity distance from memory after studying a map for a period of7 min (remembered distance). The third group made the estimates while viewing a map (perceived distance). It was found that (1) although the exponent varied from one individual to another, the psychophysical power law described well the inferred, remembered, and perceived magnitude estimates of intercity distance; (2) the following ordinal relationship occurred between the sizes of the mean exponents: perceived > remembered > inferred; (3) the correlations between observers' exponents for the first and second sessions for all types of estimate were fairly high and positive; and (4) the individual differences observed in the exponents of the psychophysical power law for magnitude estimates of inferred, remembered, and perceived intercity distance were stable, at least for an interval of 1 month between sessions.The development of direct estimation methods by S. S. Stevens and collaborators (e.g., S. S. Stevens, 1975) was followed by an interest in the variability of individual power functions . In fact, many experiments have reported considerable individual differences in the exponent of Jones & Marcus, 1961;Ramsay , 1979;Rule , 1966;Rule & Markley, 1971;Schneider, 1980;J. C. Stevens & Guirao, 1964) . The outcomes of these experiments have raised the question of whether the variability observed in the exponents reflects genuine perceptual differences or some type of cognitive factor, such as a response bias , that affects observers' responses to stimulus intensities in a scaling task. To attack this question experimentally, Duda (1975) considered three models proposed to interpret power functions . These models also specify how sensory, stimulus, and response variables determine observers' judgmental behavior in a scaling task. A correlational analysis on individual differences in exponents was undertaken to test the predictions derived from each model. The results showed that response variables are important determinants ofjudgmental behavior in psychophysical scaling . These findings led Duda to suggest that observers' responses to stimulus magnitudes in a scaling task are largely cognitive.Correlational studies of stability of individual psychophysical power function exponents have produced inconclusive and sometimes contradictory results, even when the same sensory or perceptual attribute-for example, area or length-has been used. Jones and Woskow (1962) and Ekman et al. (1968) reported low but significant correlations between exponents for two stimulus continua when the same response cont inuum was used . In addition, Ekman et al. reported high correlations when there was no change in either stimulus or response continuum. Rule (1966) found...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 57%

Individual differences in magnitude estimates of inferred, remembered, and perceived geographical distance

Silva

Ruiz

Marques

1987

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…No reference standard was provided by the experimenter (Hellman & Zwislocki, 1963, 1964Poulton, 1968Poulton, , 1979Zwisloch & Goodman, 1980). For each group, the geometric means of the subjects' numerical responses to a single run of each of the nine stimulus intensities were taken as the mean auditory magnitude estimation responses for that group (Petrosino, Fucci, & Harris, 1985).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparisons of Magnitude Estimation Scaling of Rock Music by Children, Young Adults, and Older People

et al. 1999

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present study concerned the perceptual processing of complex auditory stimuli in 10 children (M age = 8.1) as compared to 10 young adults (M age = 19.3) and 10 older adult subjects (M age = 54.2). The auditory stimulus used was 10 sec. of rock music (Led Zeppelin, 1969). All three groups provided numerical responses to nine intensities of the rock music stimulus (10, 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, 90 dB above threshold). Analysis showed that the children reported a wider range of numerical responses than both adult groups. The mean numerical responses for the children ranged from .54 to 54.24. For the young adults the range was .76 to 11.37, and for the older subjects it was 1.6 to 23.31. Results suggest that the children were not bound by the same set of rules as the adults with regard to magnitude estimation scaling of the loudness of the rock music stimulus. Their internal scaling mechanisms appeared to be more flexible and broader based than those of the adults who participated in this study.

show abstract

“…Lingual vibrotactile threshold shifts for each subject at each of the eight suprathreshold stimulus-intensity levels were recorded in decibels sensation level and averaged across the 24 subjects. The geometric means of the 24 subjects' numerical responses to a single run of each of the eight stimulus-intensity levels were taken as the mean lingual vibrotactile magnitude-estimation responses for the second scaling task (Petrosino et al, 1985).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lingual vibrotactile threshold shift during magnitude-estimation scaling: Effects on magnitude-estimation responses and scaling behavior

Fucci

Petrosino

Harris³

et al. 1989

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of the present study was to determine if lingual vibrotactile threshold shifts occurred during magnitude-estimation scaling of suprathreshold stimuli presented to the dorsal surface of the tongue. Possible relationships of the lingual vibrotactile threshold shifts to suprathreshold stimulus intensity, magnitude-estimation responses, and overall scaling behavior were explored. A single group of 24 subjects with an age range of 18 to 22 years participated in this study. Each subject performed two magnitude-estimation tasks. In one of the tasks, threshold of sensitivity was determined after every suprathreshold numerical response of the subject. If a threshold shift was recorded, threshold was allowed to return to the pretest baseline level before continuing to the next suprathreshold stimulus presentation. The results showed that threshold shift did occur during lingual vibrotactile magnitude-estimation scaling, and that it was related to suprathreshold stimulus intensity. The results also showed that the numerical magnitude-estimation responses of the subjects were different for the two scaling tasks. Overall scaling behavior of the subjects in the form of power-function exponents was not different for the two tasks.

show abstract

Effects of single-session repetitive judgments on magnitude estimation scales for lingual vibrotactile sensation

Cited by 29 publications

References 25 publications

Individual differences in magnitude estimates of inferred, remembered, and perceived geographical distance

Individual differences in magnitude estimates of inferred, remembered, and perceived geographical distance

Comparisons of Magnitude Estimation Scaling of Rock Music by Children, Young Adults, and Older People

Lingual vibrotactile threshold shift during magnitude-estimation scaling: Effects on magnitude-estimation responses and scaling behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About