The Relation Between Stimulus Analyzability and Perceived Dimensional Structure

Burns, Barbara; Shepp, Bryan E.; McDonough, Dorothy; Wiener-Ehrlich, Willa Kay

doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(08)60008-0

Cited by 43 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These stimuli, rather than stimuli Results and Discussion The training and instructions to classify by shared dimensional relations using the size-brightness set yielded dimensional classifications for Type 2, Type 4, and Type 5 triads that approached 100%. Uninstructed classification of the same stimuli previously yielded approximately 82% dimensional responding (Burns et al, 1978). That the present instructions produced significant increases in the dimensional analysis of even separable stimuli is noteworthy and supports our assumption that such instructions were well understood.…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 83%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dimensional interactions and the structure of psychological space: The representation of hue, saturation, and brightness

Burns

Shepp

1988

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The perception of color has traditionally been characterized by the subjective dimensions of hue, brightness, and saturation. In the present study we reexamined this view by investigating whether the dimensions of color stimuli are psychologically independent in dissimilarity judgment, spontaneous classification, and instructed classification tasks. Dissimilarity judgments analyzed within the framework of the additive difference measurement model (Beals, Krantz, & Tversky, 1968;Krantz & Tversky, 1975;Tversky & Krantz, 1969 reflected violations of psychological independence for hue-chroma, hue-value, and value-chroma stimulus sets. Spontaneous classifications of each color set revealed that subjects were not sensitive to shared dimensional relations of color stimuli, but rather responded to the holistic, overall similarity relations of the stimuli. In the instructed classification task, both untutored undergraduates and "color experts" (artists specially tutored in the Munsell color system), instructed to classify according to shared dimensional relations, could extract dimensional information about either value or chroma when each was varied with hue, but could not extract dimensional information about hue. Color experts were superior to nonexperts in the extraction of dimensional information about chroma only with moderately or highly saturated stimuli. The implications of these results are considered in relation to current thinking about the perceptual organization of color and current thinking about the identification of appropriate diagnostics for independent psychological dimensions.The precise notion of a psychological dimension continues to elude psychologists interested in the perception and organization of multidimensional stimuli. Defining a psychological dimension has been particularly problematic for investigators interested in color. A common assumption has been that the perception of color is organized in terms of the dimensions hue, brightness, and saturation.1 "There is no doubt, in the case of color differences, as to the number of independent perceptual attributes .... The number is three" (Krantz, 1972, p. 683). This assumption is based on scaling procedures (i.e., confusability scaling, direct estimation, multidimensional scaling, etc.) that have supported the idea that hue, brightness, and saturation are the dimensions of color space (Helm, 1964; Indow & Kanazawa, 1960; Indow & Uchizono, 1960;Newhall, 1939;Newhall, Nickerson, & Judd, 1943;Wright, 1965). One difficulty with this assumption that hue, brightness, and saturationare the three dimensionsorganizing the perception of color is related to the multiple uses of the term dimension. As Tversky and Krantz (1970) and Gati and Tversky (1982) indicated, the term has been given several meanings in the literature. Psychologists have used the term dimension simply to refer to a variable that can be physically manipulated. The term has also been used to mean an organizing principle that structures and orders perception in a consistent way. A t...

show abstract

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 83%

“…In addition, a training task employed a 6x6 set of squares varying in size (1.9, 2.4,3.0,3.9,4.9, and 6.2 ern) and value (brightness) (3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8). Dissimilarity relations of the latter stimuli previously reported by Burns et al (1978).…”

Section: Methodssupporting

confidence: 61%

Dimensional interactions and the structure of psychological space: The representation of hue, saturation, and brightness

Burns

Shepp

1988

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

134

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Vertical changes dominated, with the horizontal playing an increasing role with larger forms. Humanjudgments of rectangles show similar interaction (e.g., Burns, Shepp, McDonough, & Wiener-Ehrlich, 1978). ).…”

Section: Features Of Simple Formsmentioning

confidence: 97%

Form perception and attention in pigeons

Blough

1997

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This report selectively reviews the authors' research on stimulus control by visual forms. Most studies employed visual search of computer-generated displays, and the main behavioral measure was search reaction time. Pigeons classify simple line forms much as do humans, and there was some evidence for feature extraction, though a search asymmetry probe failed to identify several putative features. Dimensional analysis revealed a new quantitative relation between similarity and the probability of detecting a target. It also identified candidates for integral and separable stimulus dimensions. Similarity and set-size variables influenced the extent to which attention was engaged. Further studies addressed the manner in which attention is focused, revealing relationships between priming and search images. In these cases, attention to a selected form is probably driven by a top-down assessment of predictability.Birds seem to interact with their visual world much as do humans, and it is easy to assume that they see things as we do. Psychophysical studies of basic' visual functions provide some support for this view, though such things as avian acuity, temporal resolution, and color vision are also unique in suggestive ways (Donovan, 1978;Granda & Maxwell, 1979). More complex aspects ofbirds' visual perception have been less well understood, but recent studies ofsuch matters as visual categorization, texture discrimination, and visual illusions are beginning to scratch the surface ofour ignorance (cf. Stebbins & Berkley, 1990;Wasserman, 1993;Zentall, 1993). It is not our purpose to review this literature but rather to summarize some ofour own contributions to it. The present paper concentrates on processes revealed by visual search for targets defined by shape or form. Naturally, the extensive literature on human form perception influenced the course ofthis research, but it also has roots in other areas, such as foraging, and has developed its own logic over time. Our goal has been the general understanding of relevant perceptual processes; pigeon-human comparison is considered where it serves that purpose.The bird's natural reliance on visual information recommends it for perceptual research. About 20 years ago, we began to harness the pigeon's skillful foraging to a visual search paradigm in which displays and search reaction times (RTs) were computer controlled and recorded (D. S. Blough, 1979). Inthe research reviewed here, we used thisThe preparation of this report was supported in part by National Science Foundation Grant BNS-9407269. The authors thank many long-term members ofthe psychology department staffat Brown University for their help over the 18-year course of this research. Correspondence should be addressed to either author at Department of Psychology, Campus Box 1853, Brown University, Providence, RI 02912 (e-mail: donald_blough@brown.edu, or patricia_blough@brown.edu).Note: This article is one of those occasionally invited by the editor in which authors have the opportunity to provide an overview of ...

show abstract

“…Phenomenologically, these stimuli are seen as fused entities. Empirically, responses to colored stimuli in similarity scaling studies (Burns, Shepp, McDonough, & Erlich, 1978;Handel & Imai, 1972;Hyman & Well, 1967;Torgerson, 1958) and restricted classification experiments (Handel & Imai, 1972;Shepp, 1983) are based on overall similarity relations rather than dimensional structure.…”

Section: Dimensional Interaction With Color Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

Dimensional interaction of hue and brightness in preattentive field segregation

Callaghan

1984

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Relation Between Stimulus Analyzability and Perceived Dimensional Structure

Cited by 43 publications

References 36 publications

Dimensional interactions and the structure of psychological space: The representation of hue, saturation, and brightness

Dimensional interactions and the structure of psychological space: The representation of hue, saturation, and brightness

Form perception and attention in pigeons

Dimensional interaction of hue and brightness in preattentive field segregation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About