, Volume 48, Issue 3, pp 393–423 | Cite as

Multidimensional scaling models for reaction times and same-different judgments

  • Yoshio Takane
  • Justine Sergent


A method for joint analysis of reaction times and same-different judgments is discussed. A set of stimuli is assumed to have some parametric representation which uniquely defines dissimilarities between the stimuli. Those dissimilarities are then related to the observed reaction times and same-different judgments through a model of psychological processes. Three representation models of dissimilarities are considered, the Minkowski power distance model, the linear model, and Tversky's feature matching model. Maximum likelihood estimation procedures are developed and implemented in the form of a FORTRAN program. An example is given to illustrate the kind of analyses that can be performed by the proposed method.

Key words

Minkowski power distance model feature matching model maximum likelihood estimation AIC 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference notes

  1. Ramsay, J. O. Some models for similarity. A paper presented at the European meeting of the Psychometric Society, Groningen, The Netherlands, 1980.Google Scholar
  2. Furnas, G. W. Personal communication.Google Scholar
  3. Kruskal, J. B. Personal communication.Google Scholar
  4. Koopman, R. F., & Cooper, M. Some problems with Minkowski distance models in multidimensional scaling. Paper presented at the Psychometric Society meeting, Stanford, 1974.Google Scholar
  5. Sergent, J. & Takane, Y. Structures in two-choice reaction time data. A manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar


  1. Akaike, H. A new look at the statistical model identification.IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 1974,19, 716–723.Google Scholar
  2. Arabie, P. & Carroll, J. D. MAPCLUS: a mathematical programming approach to fitting the ADCLUS model.Psychometrika, 1980,45, 211–235.Google Scholar
  3. Attneave, F. Dimensions of similarity.American Journal of Psychology, 1950,63, 516–556.Google Scholar
  4. Carroll, J. D. & Chang, J. J. Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an N-way generalization of “Eckart-Young” decomposition.Psychometrika, 1970,35, 283–319.Google Scholar
  5. Chocholle, R. Variation des temps de reaction auditifs en fonction de l'intensite a diverses frequences.L'Annee Psychologique, 1940,41, 65–124.Google Scholar
  6. Coombs, C. H.A theory of data. New York: Wiley, 1964.Google Scholar
  7. Curtis, D. W., Paulos, M. A., & Rule, S. J. Relation between disjunctive reaction time and stimulus difference.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973,99, 167–173.Google Scholar
  8. Davies, G. M., Ellis, H. D., & Shepherd, J. W. Cue saliency in faces as assessed by the “Photofit” technique.Perception, 1977,6, 263–269.Google Scholar
  9. Ellis, H. D. Recognising faces.British Journal of Psychology, 1975,66, 409–426.Google Scholar
  10. Fishburn, P. C. Lexicographic additive differences.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1980,21, 191–218.Google Scholar
  11. Garner, W. R. Aspects of a stimulus: Features, dimensions, and configurations. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.),Cognition and Categorization. Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1978.Google Scholar
  12. Green, D. M. & Swets, J. A.Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Krieger, 1966.Google Scholar
  13. Grice, G. R., Nullmeyer, R. & Spiker, V. A. Application of variable criterion theory to choice reaction time.Perception & Psychophysics, 1977,22, 431–449.Google Scholar
  14. Hefner, R. A. Extensions of the law of comparative judgement to discriminable and multidimensional stimuli. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1958.Google Scholar
  15. Hyman, R. & Well, A. Judgment of similarity and spatial models.Perception & Psychophysics, 1967,2, 233–248.Google Scholar
  16. Hyman, R. & Well, A. Perceptual separability and spatial models.Perception & Psychophysics, 1968,3, 161–165.Google Scholar
  17. Ida, M. The application of the Weibull distribution to the analysis of the reaction time data.Japanese Psychological Research, 1980,22, 207–212.Google Scholar
  18. Johnson, N. L. & Kotz, S.Distributions in statistics: Continuous univariate distributions—I. Boston: Houghton Mifflins, 1970.Google Scholar
  19. Johnson, S. C. Hierarchical clustering scheme.Psychometrika, 1967,32, 241–254.Google Scholar
  20. Keren, G. & Baggen, S. Recognition models of alphanumeric characters.Perception & Psychophysics, 1981,29, 234–246.Google Scholar
  21. Krueger, L. E. A theory of perceptual matching.Psychological Review, 1978,85, 278–304.Google Scholar
  22. Krumhansl, C. L. Concerning the applicability of geometric models to similarity data: The interrelationship between similarity and spatial density.Psychological Review, 1978,84, 445–463.Google Scholar
  23. Kruskal, J. B. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis.Psychometrika, 1964a,29, 1–29.Google Scholar
  24. Kruskal, J. B. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: a numerical method.Psychometrika, 1964b,29, 115–129.Google Scholar
  25. LaBerge, D. A recruitment theory of simple behavior.Psychometrika, 1962,27, 375–396.Google Scholar
  26. Laming, D.Mathematical Psychology. London: Academic Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  27. Link, S. W. Applying RT deadlines to discrimination reaction time.Psychonomic Science, 1971,25, 355–358.Google Scholar
  28. Link, S. W. The relative judgment theory of two choice response time.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1975,12, 114–136.Google Scholar
  29. Link, S. W. & Tindall, A. D. Speed and accuracy in comparative judgments of line length.Perception & Psychophysics, 1971,9, 284–288.Google Scholar
  30. Lockhead, G. R. Processing dimensional stimuli: a note.Psychological Review, 1972,79, 410–419.Google Scholar
  31. Lockhead, G. R. Holistic versus analytic process models: A reply.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1979,5, 746–755.Google Scholar
  32. Lord, F. M. & Novick, M. R.Statistical theories of mental test scores. Menlo Park, Calif.: Addision-Wesley, 1968.Google Scholar
  33. Marley, A. A. J. Multivariate stochastic processes compatible with “aspect” models of similarity and choice.Psychometrika, 1981,46, 421–428.Google Scholar
  34. McGill, W. J. & Gibbon, J. The general gamma distribution and reaction times.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1965,2, 1–18.Google Scholar
  35. Medin, D. L. & Schaffer, M. M. Context theory of classification learning.Psychological Review, 1978,85, 207–238.Google Scholar
  36. Miller, J. Multidimensional same-different judgments: evidence against independent comparisons of dimensions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1978,4, 411–422.Google Scholar
  37. Monahan, J. S. & Lockhead, G. R. Identification of integral stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1977,196, 94–110.Google Scholar
  38. Nickerson, R. S. Same-different reaction times with multi-attribute stimulus differences.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1967,24, 543–554.Google Scholar
  39. Nickerson, R. S. Binary-classification reaction time: a review of some studies of human information-processing capabilities.Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, 1972,4, 275–318.Google Scholar
  40. Ollman, R. Fast guesses in choice reaction time.Psychonomic Science, 1966,6, 155–156.Google Scholar
  41. Petrusic, W. M. & Jamieson, D. G. Relation between probability of preferential choice and time to choose changes with practice.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1978,4, 471–482.Google Scholar
  42. Podgorny, P. Deciding that objects are the same. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, 1980.Google Scholar
  43. Podgorny, P. and Garner, W. R. Reaction time as a measure of inter- and intraobject visual similarity: letters of the alphabet.Perception & Psychophysics, 1979,26, 37–52.Google Scholar
  44. Posner, M. I.Chronometric Explorations of Mind. Hillsdale, N.J. Erlbaum, 1978.Google Scholar
  45. Ramsay, J. O. Maximum likelihood estimation in multidimensional scaling.Psychometrika, 1977,42, 241–266.Google Scholar
  46. Ramsay, J. O. Confidence regions for multidimensional scaling analysis.Psychometrika, 1978,43, 145–160.Google Scholar
  47. Ramsay, J. O. Joint analysis of direct ratings, pairwise preferences and dissimilarities.Psychometrika, 1980,45, 149–165.Google Scholar
  48. Ramsay, J. O. Some statistical approaches to multidimensional scaling.Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 1982.Google Scholar
  49. Restle, F.Psychology of judgment and choice. New York: Wiley, 1961.Google Scholar
  50. Rock, I.Orientation and form. New York: Academic Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  51. Sergent, J. About face: Left-hemisphere involvement in processing physiognomies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1982,8, 1–14.Google Scholar
  52. Sergent, J. & Bindra, D. Differential hemispheric processing of faces: methodological considerations and reinterpretation.Psychological Bulletin, 1981,89, 541–554.Google Scholar
  53. Shepard, R. N. The analysis of proximities: multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function, I & II.Psychometrika, 1962,27, 125–140 & 219–246.Google Scholar
  54. Shepard, R. N. Attention and the metric structure of the stimulus space.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1964,1, 54–87.Google Scholar
  55. Shepard, R. N. Representation of structure in similarity data: problems and prospects.Psychometrika, 1974,39, 373–421.Google Scholar
  56. Shepard, R. N. The circumplex and related topological manifolds in the study of perception. In Shye, S. (Ed.),Theory construction and data analysis in the social sciences. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978.Google Scholar
  57. Shepard, R. N. & Arabie, P. Additive clustering: Representation of similarities as combinations of discrete overlapping properties.Psychological Review, 1979,86, 87–123.Google Scholar
  58. Shepard, R. N., Kilpatric, D. W. & Cunningham, J. P. The internal representation of numbers.Cognitive Psychology, 1975,7, 82–138.Google Scholar
  59. Sorkin, R. D. Extension of the theory of signal detectability to matching procedures in psychoacoustics.The Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 1962,34, 1745–1751.Google Scholar
  60. Stone, M. Models for choice-reaction time.Psychometrika, 1960,25, 251–260.Google Scholar
  61. Takane, Y. A maximum likelihood method for nonmetric multidimensional scaling: I. The case in which all empirical pairwise orderings are independent—theory and evaluations.Japanese Psychological Research, 1978,20, 7–17 and 105–114.Google Scholar
  62. Takane, Y. Multidimensional successive categories scaling: a maximum likelihood method.Psychometrika, 1981,46, 9–28.Google Scholar
  63. Takane, Y. Maximum likelihood additivity analysis.Psychometrika, 1982,47, 225–241.Google Scholar
  64. Takane, Y. & Carroll, J. D. Nonmetric maximum likelihood multidimensional scaling from directional rankings of similarities.Psychometrika, 1981,46, 389–405.Google Scholar
  65. Torgerson, W. S.Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley, 1958.Google Scholar
  66. Tversky, A. Features of similarity.Psychological Review, 1977,84, 327–352.Google Scholar
  67. Winsberg, S., & Ramsay, J. O. Analysis of pairwise preference data using integrated B-splines.Psychometrika, 1981,46, 171–186.Google Scholar
  68. Yellot, J. I. Correction for fast guessing and the speed-accuracy trade-off in choice reaction time.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1971,8, 159–199.Google Scholar
  69. Young, F. W. Nonmetric scaling of line length using latencies, similarity, and same-different judgments.Perception & Psychophysics, 1970,8, 363–369.Google Scholar
  70. Young, F. W., de Leeuw, J., & Takane, Y. Quantifying qualitative data. In Lantermann, E. D., and Feger, H. (Eds.)Similarity and choice. Vienna: Hans Huber, 1980.Google Scholar
  71. Zinnes, J. L., & Wolff, R. P. Single and multidimensional same-different judgments.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1977,16, 30–50.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychometric Society 1983

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yoshio Takane
    • 1
  • Justine Sergent
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyMcGill UniversityMontrealCanada

Personalised recommendations