Minds and Machines

, Volume 21, Issue 1, pp 73–81 | Cite as

Weber-Fechner Law and the Optimality of the Logarithmic Scale

Article

Abstract

Weber-Fechner Law states that the perceived intensity is proportional to the logarithm of the stimulus. Recent experiments suggest that this law also holds true for perception of numerosity. Therefore, the use of a logarithmic scale for the quantification of the perceived intensity may also depend on how the cognitive apparatus processes information. If Weber-Fechner law is the result of natural selection, then the logarithmic scale should be better, in some sense, than other biologically feasible scales. We consider the minimization of the relative error as the target of natural selection and we provide a formal proof that the logarithmic scale minimizes the maximal relative error.

Keywords

Weber-Fechner Law Quantization Relative error Logarithmic scale Numerosity 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Partially supported by CNPq grants 303583/2008-8, 480101/2008-6 , FAPERJ grant E-26 102.821/2008 and by PRONEX-Optimization.

References

  1. Batschelet, E. (1979). Introduction to mathematics for life scientists. New York: Springer.MATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Burden, R. L., Faires, J. D., & Reynolds, A. C. (1978). Numerical analysis. Boston, Mass: Prindle, Weber & Schmidt.MATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Dehaene, S. (2003). The neural basis of the Weber-Fechner law: a logarithmic mental number line. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7(4), 145–147.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Fechner, G. T. (1860). Elemente der Psychophysik, Vol. 2. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Haertel.Google Scholar
  5. Higham, N. J. (1996). Accuracy and stability of numerical algorithms. Philadelphia, PA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM).MATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Laski, E. V., & Siegler, R. S. (2007). Is 27 a big number? Correlational and causal connections among numerical categorization, number line estimation, and numerical magnitude comparison. Child Development, 78(6), 1723–1743.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review 63(2), 81–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Nieder, A., & Miller, E. K. (2003). Coding of cognitive magnitude: Compressed scaling of numerical information in the primate prefrontal cortex. Neuron, 37(1), 149–157.Google Scholar
  9. Ortega, J. M. (1972). Numerical analysis. A second course. New York: Academic Press. Computer Science and Applied Mathematics.Google Scholar
  10. Stevens, S. S. (1961). To honor Fechner and repeal his law: A power function, not a log function, describes the operating characteristic of a sensory system. Science, 133(3446), 80–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Stewart, G. W. (1996). Afternotes on numerical analysis. Philadelphia, PA: Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM).MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Weber, E. H. (1850). Der Tastsinn und das Gemeingefuhl. In Handwörterbuch der Physiologie, Vol. 3. Braunschweig.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of MedicineFederal University of Rio de JaneiroRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.IMPARio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations