Skip to main content
Log in

Human Psychophysical Functions, an Update: Methods for Identifying their form; Estimating their Parameters; and Evaluating the Effects of Important Predictors

  • Published:
Psychometrika Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Stevens’ power law for the judgments of sensation has a long history in psychology and is used in many psychophysical investigations of the effects of predictors such as group or condition. Stevens’ formulation \(\varPsi = {aP}^{n}\), where \(\varPsi \) is the psychological judgment, P is the physical intensity, and \(n\) is the power law exponent, is usually tested by plotting log \((\varPsi )\) against log (P). In some, but by no means all, studies, effects on the scale parameter, \(a\), are also investigated. This two-parameter model is simple but known to be flawed, for at least some modalities. Specifically, three-parameter functions that include a threshold parameter produce a better fit for many data sets. In addition, direct non-linear computation of power laws often fit better than regressions of log-transformed variables. However, such potentially flawed methods continue to be used because of assumptions that the approximations are “close enough” as to not to make any difference to the conclusions drawn (or possibly through ignorance the errors in these assumptions). We investigate two modalities in detail: duration and roughness. We show that a three-parameter power law is the best fitting of several plausible models. Comparison between this model and the prevalent two parameter version of Stevens’ power law shows significant differences for the parameter estimates with at least medium effect sizes for duration.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Allan, L. G. (1983). Magnitude estimation of temporal intervals. Perception and Psychophysics, 33(1), 29–42. doi:10.3758/BF03205863.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, N. H. (1970). Functional measurement and psychophysical judgment. Psychological Review, 77(3), 153.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, A., Ward, C., Mendelson, M., Mock, J., & Erbaugh, J. (1961). An inventory for measuring depression. Archives of General Psychiatry, 4(6), 561–571. doi:10.1016/S0010-440X(61)80020-5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Borg, G. (1962). Physical performance and perceived exertion (Vol. XI). Lund, Sweden: Gleerup.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg, G. (1998). Borg’s perceived exertion and pain scales. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg, G., Hassmen, P., Lagerstrum, M. (1987). Perceived exertion related to heart rate and blood lactate during arm and leg exercise. European Journal of Applied Physiology and Occupational Physiology, 56(6), 679–685. doi:10.1007/BF00424810.

  • Borg, G., Lindblad, I., & Holmgren, A. (1981). Quantitative evaluation of chest pain. Acta Medica Scandinavica, 209(S644), 43–45. doi:10.1111/j.0954-6820.1981.tb03117.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borg, G., Van Den Burg, M., Hassmen, P., Kaijser, L., & Tanaka, S. (1987). Relationships between perceived exertion hr and hla in cycling running and walking. Scandinavian Journal of Sports Sciences, 9(3), 69–78.

    Google Scholar 

  • Borg, G. V., & Marks, L. (1983). Twelve meanings of the measure constant in psychophysical power functions. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 21(1), 73–75. doi:10.3758/BF03329958.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, A. L. (1983). Techniques of attitude scale construction. New York, NY: Irvington.

    Google Scholar 

  • Edwards, W. (1954). The theory of decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 51(4), 380–417.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eisler, H. (1976). Experiments on subjective duration 1868–1975: A collection of power function exponents. Psychological Bulletin, 83(6), 1154–1171. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.83.6.1154.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Eisler, H., & Eisler, A. D. (1992). Time perception: Effects of sex and sound intensity on scales of subjective duration. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 33(4), 339–358. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9450.1992.tb00923.x.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Ekman, G. (1959). Weber’s law and related functions. The Journal of Psychology, 47(2), 343–352.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Florentine, M., & Epstein, M. (2006). To honor stevens and repeal his law (for the auditory system. Paper presented at the Fechner Day 2006. Proceedings of the 22nd Annual Meeting of the International Society for Psychophysics, St. Albans, UK. http://www.ispsychophysics.org/fd/index.php/proceedings/article/view/332/324.

  • Fucci, D., Petrosino, L., Hallowell, B., Andra, L., & Wilcox, C. (1997). Magnitude estimation scaling of annoyance in response to rock music: Effects of sex and listeners’ preference. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 84(2), 663–670.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Galanter, E. (1962). The direct measurement of utility and subjective probability. The American Journal of Psychology, 75(2), 208–220. http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0002-9556.

  • Galanter, E. (1990). Utility Functions for Nonmonetary Events. The American Journal of Psychology, 103(4), 449–470. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1423318.

  • Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory. Economerica, 47, 263. doi:10.2307/1914185.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornbrot, D. E., Donnelly, M., & Galanter, E. (1981). Estimates of utility function parameters from signal-detection experiments. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Human Perception and Performance, 7(2), 441–458. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.7.2.441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kornbrot, D. E., Msetfi, R. M., & Grimwood, M. J. (2013). Time perception and depressive realism: judgment type, psychophysical functions and bias. PLoS ONE, 8(8), e71585. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0071585.

  • Kornbrot, D. E., Penn, P., Petrie, H., Furner, S., & Hardwick, A. (2007). Roughness perception in haptic virtual reality for sighted and blind people. [Article]. Perception & Psychophysics, 69, pp. 502–512. doi:10.3758/BF03193907, http://hdl.handle.net/2299/2959.

  • Likert, R., Roslow, S., & Murphy, G. (1993). A simple and reliable method of scoring the Thurstone attitude scales. Personnel Psychology, 46(3), 689–690. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.1993.tb00893.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lindsay, D. R. J., & Norman, D. A. (1977). Human information processing (3rd ed.). London: Academic.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, L. E., & Cain, W. S. (1972). Perception of intervals and magnitudes for three prothetic continua. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94(1), 6–17. doi:10.1037/h0032746.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, L. E., & Stevens, J. C. (1966). Individual brightness functions. Perception and Psychophysics, 1(1), 17–24. doi:10.3758/BF03207815.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, L. E., & Stevens, J. C. (1968). The form of the psychophysical function near threshold. Perception and Psychophysics, 4(5), 315–318. doi:10.3758/BF03210523.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McGraw, A. P., Larsen, J. T., Kahneman, D., & Schkade, D. (2010). Comparing gains and losses. Psychological Science, 21(10), 1438–1445. doi:10.1177/0956797610381504.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Mountcastle, V. B., Poggio, G. F., & Werner, G. (1963). The relation of thalamic cell response to peripheral stimuli varied over an intensive continuum. Journal of Neurophysiology, 26, 807–834.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Norman, G. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in health sciences education, 15(5), 625–632. doi:10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sellin, T., & Wolfgang, M. E. (1964). The measurement of delinquency. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sellin, T., & Wolfgang, M. E. (1978). The measurement of delinquency (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Steingrimsson, R. (2011). Evaluating a model of global psychophysical judgments for brightness: II. Behavioral properties linking summations and productions. Attention. Perception and Psychophysics, 73(3), 872–885. doi:10.3758/s13414-010-0067-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steingrimsson, R., & Luce, R. D. (2005a). Evaluating a model of global psychophysical judgments. I: Behavioral properties of summations and productions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 49(4), 290–307. doi:10.3758/APP.71.8.1916.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steingrimsson, R., & Luce, R. D. (2005). Evaluating a model of global psychophysical judgments. II: Behavioral properties linking summations and productions. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 49(4), 308–319. doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2005.03.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steingrimsson, R., & Luce, R. D. (2006). Empirical evaluation of a model of global psychophysical judgments: III. A form for the psychophysical function and intensity filtering. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 50(1), 15–29. doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2005.11.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steingrimsson, R., & Luce, R. D. (2007). Empirical evaluation of a model of global psychophysical judgments: IV. Forms for the weighting function. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 51(1), 29–44. doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2006.08.001.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steingrimsson, R., & Luce, R. D. (2012). Predictions from a model of global psychophysics about differences between perceptual and physical matches. Attention Perception and Psychophysics, 74(8), 1668–1680. doi:10.3758/s13414-012-0334-8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, J. C. (1974). Families of converging power functions in psychophysics. In H. R. Moskowitz, B. Scharf, & J. C. Stevens (Eds.), Sensation and measurement: Papers in honor of S. S. Stevens. Oxford, England: D. Reidel.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, J. C. (1990). Perceived roughness as a function of body locus. Attention Perception and Psychophysics, 47(3), 298–304. doi:10.3758/BF03205004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, J. C., & Marks, L. E. (1980). Cross-modality matching functions generated by magnitude estimation. Perception and Psychophysics, 27(5), 379–389. doi:10.3758/BF03204456.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, J. C., & Marks, L. E. (1999). Stevens power law in vision: Exponents, intercepts, and thresholds. Fechner Day, 99, 82–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, S. S. (1946). On the theory of scales of measurement. Science, 103, 677–680. http://www.jstor.org/stable/1671815.

  • Stevens, S. S. (1961). To honour Fechner and repeal his law. Science, 133, 80–86. doi:10.1126/science.133.3446.80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, S. S. (1975). Psychophysics. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, S. S., & Galanter, E. H. (1957). Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen perceptual continua. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 377–411. doi:10.1037/h0043680.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens’ Power Law. Retrieved August 18, 2013 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevens%27_power_law.

  • Teghtsoonian, R. (1971). On the exponents in Stevens’ law and the constant in Ekman’s law. Psychological Review, 78, 71–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Teghtsoonian, R. (2012). The standard model for perceived magnitude: A framework for (almost) everything known about it. American Journal of Psychology, 125(2), 165–174. doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.125.2.0165.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tversky, A. (1967). Additivity, utility and subjective probability. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 4, 175–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West, R., Ward, L., & Khosla, R. (2000). Constrained scaling: The effect of learned psychophysical scales on idiosyncratic response bias. Attention Perception and Psychophysics, 62(1), 137–151. doi:10.3758/BF03212067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank Joseph Glicksohn, Robert Teghtsoonian, and a third anonymous reviewer together with Editor Alberto Maydeu-Olivare for extremely perceptive and constructive comments on earlier versions of this Ms. I would also like to thank members of the International Society for Psychophysics for helpful discussions and email comments.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Diana E. Kornbrot.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (xlsx 180 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kornbrot, D.E. Human Psychophysical Functions, an Update: Methods for Identifying their form; Estimating their Parameters; and Evaluating the Effects of Important Predictors. Psychometrika 81, 201–216 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-014-9418-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-014-9418-9

Keywords

Navigation