Inverse cross-modality matching: A test of ratio judgment consistency for group and individual data

Lilienthal, Michael G.; Dawson, William E.

doi:10.3758/bf03204178

Cited by 10 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A key question has been the kind of consistency ratio estimates must show in order to serve as the basis of measurement. This question has been approached in a number of indirect ways, e.g., via cross-modality matching, the psychophysical function (Marks, 1974), and inverse crossmodality matching (Lilienthal & Dawson, 1976).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A theory of relative judgment

Fagot

1978

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper is concerned with the scaling method of "ratio estimation." The simple theory that equates reported ratio judgments to ratios of psychological magnitudes is first considered, then two close relatives of this theory are formulated, each of which places weaker constraints on the structure of the data. Structural conditions are stated that express the relations that must hold among observed ratio judgments for each of the models. The models proposed are "cumulative" in the sense that the second is a weakened version of the first, and the third a weakened version of the second. A special feature of the models is that they may be tested entirely in terms of observables, avoiding the necessity of scale construction prior to testing. Tests were carried out on data from 9 published studies. The strongest model, typically used in scale construction using ratio estimation data, was generally inadequate, showing large systematic errors. However, the weakest version generally passed the tests of internal consistency, and the model equation provided a basis for constructing ratio scales utilizing bias parameters.This paper is concerned with the scaling method of ratio estimation. In a typical task, a pair of stimuli (a, b) is presented, and the subject is instructed to respond with a number that corresponds to the sensation "ratio" of a to b relative to a defined attribute. In another variation, called "free ratio estimation" (Mashhour, 1964), subjects assign a number to each of the two stimuli such that the ratio of the numbers assigned reflects the sensation ratio. Thus the method applies to any response that can be transformed to a ratio. The method does not require a modulus, and usually all possible pairs are presented.The method of ratio estimation has a long history (Ekman, 1958;Stevens, 1958), but recently the simple theory that equates the reported sensation ratio to a ratio of psychological magnitudes has been questioned (e.g., Fagot, Stewart, & Kleinknecht, 1975;SjOberg, 1971). If the simple theory does not lead to valid ratio scales, how might the theory be modified without abandoning the basic assumption that subjects are capable of making ratio judgments that are consistent in a well-defined sense?This paper answers the question by developing two close relatives of the simple theory of ratio estimation that place weaker constraints on the structure of the data. The different versions constitute a theory of relative judgment in the obvious sense that a stimulus is judged relative to another stimulus. This relativity is in no sense trivial, since it leads to the formulation of tests of internal consistency not possible with methods such as the pure form of magnitude estimation in which stimuli are judged one at a time.Work on this paper was carried out, in part, during the author's tenure as a Fellow at the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study, Wassenaar, Holland. 243The basic question asked is: Assuming that a ratio scale exists, what relations must hold among observed ratio estimations? The answe...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A theory of relative judgment

Fagot

1978

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Next are three studies by Dawson and colleagues (Dawson & Brinker, 1971;Lilienthal & Dawson, 1976;Wanschura & Dawson, 1974) in which loudness and duration were used in a counterbalanced design. The table shows that the exponent ratios, β/β′, are again consistent with typical findings: the values are all around 0.6, which is consistent with a loudness exponent of about 0.6 and a duration exponent of about 1.0.…”

Section: Empirical Evidence: Cross-modality Matchingmentioning

confidence: 99%

On bias in magnitude scaling and some conjectures of Stevens

DeCarlo

2005

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Similarly, Luce and Mo (1965) present data which suggest a fairly high degree of stability in heaviness functions produced by magnitude estimation. Cross-modality matching studies suggest that individual observers can produce consistent exponents (Lilienthal & Dawson, 1976;Wanschura & Dawson, 1974). In each of these studies, observers were tested two to six times to evaluate the reliability of individual psychophysical function exponents.…”

Section: St Louis University St Louis Missouri 63103mentioning

confidence: 99%

Intraindividual consistency on a cross-modality matching task

Walsh¹,

Browman²

1978

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three observers matched tone bursts and flashes for stimulus magnitude. Matches were made by each observer during 14 sessions over a 2-month period. No intraindividual differences in power function exponents were found. Power function exponents for individuals seem to remain constant across many repetitions of this psychophysical task.Investigations of the stability of psychophysical power function exponents produced by an individual have inconclusive results. For example, Teghtsoonian and Teghtsoonian (1971), recording magnitude estimations of visual area, suggest that exponents from an individual on this task are not stable if the time period between testing is 24 h or longer. In contrast, Logue (1976) reports a correlation between the exponents produced by individuals in two sessions using magnitude estimation of loudness. McGill (1960) has shown that loudness functions for individuals can be reproduced rather well. In this study, subjects estimated loudness in two sessions by indicating the distance on a line that represented the loudness of a tone. Similarly, Luce and Mo (1965) present data which suggest a fairly high degree of stability in heaviness functions produced by magnitude estimation. Cross-modality matching studies suggest that individual observers can produce consistent exponents (Lilienthal & Dawson, 1976;Wanschura & Dawson, 1974). In each of these studies, observers were tested two to six times to evaluate the reliability of individual psychophysical function exponents. Although these studies often report a correlation between exponents produced by an individual, the extent of exponent stability is still questionable.Power function exponents for a single observer should remain fairly constant over time if exponent values are more closely related to sensory system properties than to non-sensory factors. Acceptance of individual power function exponents as accurate indications of sensory transduction requires that they be shown to endure within the individual over many sessions under constant conditions. The present study examined the performance of individuals on a cross-modality matching task. Fourteen power function exponents, obtained from data collected over a period of at least 2 months, were computed for each subject.

show abstract

Inverse cross-modality matching: A test of ratio judgment consistency for group and individual data

Cited by 10 publications

References 17 publications

A theory of relative judgment

A theory of relative judgment

On bias in magnitude scaling and some conjectures of Stevens

Intraindividual consistency on a cross-modality matching task

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About