Subjective magnitude information in semantic orderings

Holyoak, Keith J.; Walker, Janet

doi:10.1016/0022-5371(76)90026-8

Cited by 66 publications

(57 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are a number of studies that have shown distance effects of interval scale differences over and above ordinal differences both for entirely arbitrary series (Griggs & Shea, 1977;Griggs, Townes, & Keen, 1979) and for series that are based on preexperimental ordering (Banks, 1977;Friedman, 1978;Holyoak & Walker, 1976). These studies, however, show only that knowledge of the interval scale distances can affect RT; they do not show that the knowledge itself is specifically stored in an analog form.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discriminations among perceptual and symbolic stimuli

Banks

Mermelstein

1982

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This research compares the time required for perceptual discriminations among pairs of physically present objects (circles) with the time required to discriminate pairs of symbols (nonsense syllables) that subjects learned to associate uniquely with each of the circles. Four experiments show very large differences between symbolic and perceptual discriminations. Discrimination times for the perceptual stimuli declined systematically as their size ratio increased, but discriminations among the associated nonsense syllables showed only a strictly ordinal effect of position in the series. Discriminations among the symbolic stimuli showed a large semantic congruity effect, but the perceptual stimuli showed none. The research does not replicate previous results showing similarities between perceptual and symbolic processing suggestive of image processing. We conclude that in the symbolic task subjects use only ordinal information rather than images or analog representations of the associated circles. We propose that perceptual discriminations show a semantic congruity effect only when they are processed as if the perceptual stimuli were symbolic.The question of how we reason with serial orders is an important one in cognitive psychology, not only because we are frequently called upon to think in terms of serial orders, but also because an understanding of such reasoning will cast light on a broad set of cognitive activities, These cognitive activities include, for example, the process by which a child (or adult) infers a transitive linear ordering of objects on a dimension such as size from experience with a subset of the possible relations among the objects so ordered (cf. Potts, 1972;Trabasso & Riley, 1975), as well as the process by which reasoning with these orderings is accomplished once they are set up.A number of investigators have proposed that people answer questions about short serial orders by using mental imagery or by using "analog" processing that is similar in some respects to mental imagery (cf. Jamieson

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Discriminations among perceptual and symbolic stimuli

Banks

Mermelstein

1982

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In particular, both perceptual and symbolic judgments yield a distance effect, such that the ease of judgments (indexed by accuracy and/or reaction time) increases with the magnitude difference between the objects being compared (e.g., Moyer, 1973;Moyer & Bayer, 1976;Moyer & Landauer, 1967). A symbolic distance effect is observed not only with quasi-perceptual dimensions such as size, but also with more abstract dimensions such as animal intelligence (Banks, White, Sturgill, & Mermelstein, 1983) and with scalar adjectives of quality (e.g., good, fair; Holyoak & Walker, 1976). Non-human primates also exhibit a distance effect for judgments along various perceptual dimensions, including numerosity (Nieder & Miller, 2003).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The discovery and comparison of symbolic magnitudes

Chen

Holyoak

2014

Cognitive Psychology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

a b s t r a c tHumans and other primates are able to make relative magnitude comparisons, both with perceptual stimuli and with symbolic inputs that convey magnitude information. Although numerous models of magnitude comparison have been proposed, the basic question of how symbolic magnitudes (e.g., size or intelligence of animals) are derived and represented in memory has received little attention. We argue that symbolic magnitudes often will not correspond directly to elementary features of individual concepts. Rather, magnitudes may be formed in working memory based on computations over more basic features stored in long-term memory. We present a model of how magnitudes can be acquired and compared based on BARTlet, a representationally simpler version of Bayesian Analogy with Relational Transformations (BART; Lu, Chen, & Holyoak, 2012). BARTlet operates on distributions of magnitude variables created by applying dimension-specific weights (learned with the aid of empirical priors derived from pre-categorical comparisons) to more primitive features of objects. The resulting magnitude distributions, formed and maintained in working memory, are sensitive to contextual influences such as the range of stimuli and polarity of the question. By incorporating psychological reference points that control the precision of magnitudes in working memory and applying the tools of signal detection theory, BARTlet is able to account for a wide range of empirical phenomena involving magnitude comparisons, including the symbolic distance effect and the semantic congruity effect. We discuss the role of reference points in cognitive and social decision-making, and implications for the evolution of relational representations.

show abstract

“…For example, Moyer and Landauer (1967) presented subjects with pairs of digits and found that decisions about which digit was larger were faster if the difference between the digits was large (e.g., 3 and 9) rather than small (e.g., 3 and 4). In addition to other digit studies (Banks, Fujii, & Kayra-Stuart, 1976;Buckley & Gillman, 1974;Parkman, 1971;Sekuler, Rubin, & Armstrong, 1971), distance effects have been obtained with several other continua, including remembered object sizes (Holyoak, 1977;Jamieson & Petrusic, 1975;Moyer, 1973;Paivio, 1975) and semantically ordered terms such as adjectives of quality (e.g., good, fair) (Holyoak & Walker, 1976). Moyer and Landauer (1967) were the first to point out that the symbolic distance effect has a parallel in perceptual comparison tasks.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Comparative judgments with numerical reference points

Holyoak

1978

Cognitive Psychology

152

150

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A model of subjective magnitude comparisons is explored, which assumes that subjects compare symbolic stimulus magnitudes with respect to a reference point. The reference point may be established implicitly by the question (e.g., "Which is larger?" vs "Which is smaller?") or be presented explicitly (e.g., "Choose the stimulus closer to X."). The model was tested in five experiments in which subjects judged which of two comparison digits was closer to (or further from) a reference digit. Regression analyses in three experiments revealed that reaction time depended on the ratio of the distances from the comparison items to the reference point. The other two experiments provided evidence that subjects can strategically vary the processes by which they compare stimuli to a reference point. The results indicated that subjects can perform various types of "analog arithnietic" using either the linear number scale or a nonlinear scale of subjective digit magnitude.A major property of the human memory system is the ability to store and manipulate magnitude information. Many physical dimensions (e.g., size, distance, and duration) are perceptually continuous, and we can code the dimensional values of stimuli into memory. In addition, many conceptual dimensions are also subjectively continuous. These include complex attributes such as pleasantness, and such abstract but fundamental concepts as number. Natural languages incorporate a variety of devices for expressing information about continua, including adverbial quantifiers (e.g., "moderately," " shortly before"), ordered semantic categories (e.g., terms for intervals of time), and aspects of the tense system for verbs. A full understanding of cognitive processing must of necessity include an understanding of the representation of magnitude information in memory.Despite its importance, the issue of magnitude representation has sometimes been overlooked in investigations of semantic memory.

show abstract

Subjective magnitude information in semantic orderings

Cited by 66 publications

References 19 publications

Discriminations among perceptual and symbolic stimuli

Discriminations among perceptual and symbolic stimuli

The discovery and comparison of symbolic magnitudes

Comparative judgments with numerical reference points

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About