Range and regression effects in magnitude scaling

Teghtsoonian, Robert; Teghtsoonian, Martha

doi:10.3758/bf03204247

Cited by 158 publications

(117 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

104

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Table 2 presents the results with respect to the exponents. The table shows that the ME exponent and the inverse MP exponent, which from Equations 9 and 11 are estimates of bβ and β /b, respectively, clearly vary with the stimulus range, as was also noted by Teghtsoonian and Teghtsoonian (1978). The estimates of β derived from Equation 12, on the other hand, are fairly constant as the range varies, for both the loudness and distance experiments.…”

Section: Range Effectsmentioning

confidence: 59%

“…Although Stevens (e.g., 1986) noted that participants generally appear to shorten the response range in magnitude scaling experiments, as shown in Table 1, Table 2 suggests that this occurs because experimenters have tended to use a wide stimulus range. In fact, for the smallest range in the distance study, the bias is expansive, b Ͼ 1, which indicates a reversal of the regression effect, as was observed by Teghtsoonian and Teghtsoonian (1978). A useful aspect of the bias model is that it provides an interpretation of this reversal, attributing it to an effect of stimulus range on response bias, and not as an effect on the psychophysical exponent.…”

Section: Range Effectsmentioning

confidence: 89%

“…Thus, the bias can be viewed as representing a constriction or shortening of the response range: The numbers are too small for Ψ/Ψ 0 Ͼ 1 and too large for Ψ/Ψ 0 Ͻ 1, so the participant tends to avoid extremes, which is in line with Stevens's "comfort" and "caution" explanations of the regression effect (1986, pp. 273-274; see also Stevens & Greenbaum, 1966;Teghtsoonian & Teghtsoonian, 1978). Note, however, that the exact description of the nature of the response bias depends on where the reference sensation Ψ 0 is located.…”

Section: Bias In Magnitude Estimationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Fortunately, data are available for experiments where both ME and MP were used in a counterbalanced design and where the stimulus range was varied. Teghtsoonian and Teghtsoonian (1978;see also Teghtsoonian, 1973) conducted studies that showed that stimulus range affected the exponent of Stevens's power law. Loudness and distance were judged in ME and MP experiments where different ranges of stimuli were used (range was varied across groups of participants, with each participant participating in both ME and MP).…”

Section: Range Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

On bias in magnitude scaling and some conjectures of Stevens

DeCarlo

2005

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Range Effectsmentioning

confidence: 59%

Section: Range Effectsmentioning

confidence: 89%

Section: Bias In Magnitude Estimationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Range Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

On bias in magnitude scaling and some conjectures of Stevens

DeCarlo

2005

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, experiments in outdoor environments (Da Silva & Rozestraten, 1979;Gibson, Bergman, & Purdy, 1955;Miskie, Dainoff, Sherman, & Johnston, 1975;Teghtsoonian & Teghtsoonian, 1970) and in laboratories (Künnapas, 1960;Teghtsoonian & Teghtsoonian, 1969;Teghtsoonian & Teghtsoonian, 1978) differ in their results. Only one investigation on distance scaling was carried out with children as observers, whose ages ranged from 8 to 12 years old.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Distance perception in a natural outdoor setting: is there a developmental trend to overconstancy?

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main purpose of the present study was to investigate whether in natural environment, using very large physical distances, there is a trend to overconstancy for distance estimates during development. One hundred and twenty-nine children aged 5 to 13 years old and twenty-one adults (in a control group), participated as observers. The observer's task was to bisect egocentric distances, ranging from 1.0 to 296.0 m, presented in a large open field. The analyses focused on two parameters, constant errors and variable errors, such as measuring accuracy and precision, respectively. A third analysis focused on the developmental pattern of shifts in constancy as a function of age and range of distances. Constant error analysis showed that there are two relevant parameters for accuracy, age, and range of distances. For short distances, there are three developmental stages: 5-7 years, when children have unstable responses, 7-11, underconstancy, and 13 to adulthood, when accuracy is reached. For large distances, there is a two-stage development: 5-11 years, with severe underconstancy, and beyond this age, with mild underconstancy. Variable errors analyses indicate that precision is noted for 7 year-old children, independently of the range of distances. The constancy analyses indicated that there is a shift from constancy (or slightly overconstancy) to underconstancy as a function of physical distance for all age groups. The age difference is noted in the magnitude of underconstancy that occurs in larger distances, where adults presented lower levels of underconstancy than children. The present data were interpreted as due to a developmental change in cognitive processing rather than to changes in visual space perception. Keywords: visual perception, space perception, perceptual development, psychophysics, child psychology, egocentric distance El principal objetivo de este estudio fue investigar si en un medio natural, empleando distancias físicas muy grandes, hay una tendencia a sobre-constancia para las estimaciones de distancias durante el desarrollo evolutivo. Participaron como observadores 129 niños de edades entre 5 y 13 años y 21 adultos (en un grupo control). La tarea de los observadores consistió en biseccionar unas distancias egocéntricas, que variaban entre 1,0 y 296,0 m, presentadas en un gran campo abierto. El análisis se centró en dos parámetros, error constante y error variable, de la exactitud y precisión de medida, respectivamente. Un tercer análisis se centró en el patrón evolutivo de cambios en la constancia en función de la edad y el rango de distancias. El análisis de los errores constantes mostró que hay dos parámetros relevantes para la precisión, edad y rango de distancias. Para distancias cortas, hay tres fases evolutivas: 5-7 años, cuando los niños dan respuestas inestables, 7-11, infra-constancia, y 13 años hasta la adultez, cuando alcanzan la exactitud (constancia). Para las distancias largas, hay un desarrollo de dos fases: 5-11 años, con infra-constancia severa, y más allá de esta edad, con l...

show abstract

Psychophysical Scaling

Marks¹,

Gescheider²

2002

Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychophysical scaling refers to the process of quantifying psychological events, especially sensations and perceptions. Scaling requires both a set of empirical operations and a theoretical framework to derive the quantitative values or representations. The chapter treats scaling as it is accomplished through discrimination, partition, and magnitude methods, in each case considering how the relevant data are obtained, how the scales depend on the particular theoretical assumptions, and the extent to which findings are compatible with those assumptions. With partition and magnitude methods in particular, it is important to consider the ways that nonlinear response transformations may intervene between underlying perceptual scales and overt responses; within this framework, the chapter reviews the experimental and methodological variables that affect overt psychophysical responses, as well as theories that seek to validate various approaches to scaling. Detailed examples are given of the design and analysis of two experiments, one of which used a partition method (graphic rating) and the other a magnitude method (magnitude estimation), to study binaural summation of loudness, thereby illuminating many of the important experimental and theoretical issues while at the same time revealing the pragmatic value of using scaling methodology to study sensory and perceptual processes.

show abstract

Range and regression effects in magnitude scaling

Cited by 158 publications

References 17 publications

On bias in magnitude scaling and some conjectures of Stevens

On bias in magnitude scaling and some conjectures of Stevens

Distance perception in a natural outdoor setting: is there a developmental trend to overconstancy?

Psychophysical Scaling

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About