Advertisement

Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 65, Issue 7, pp 1161–1177 | Cite as

Comparison is not just subtraction: Effects of time- and space-order on subjective stimulus difference

  • Åke HellströmEmail author
Article

Abstract

In five experiments, participants made comparative judgments of paired successive or simultaneous stimuli. Time- or space-order errors were obtained, which varied with the interstimulus interval (ISI) or stimulus duration, as well as with the stimulus level. The results, in terms of scaled subjective differences, are well described by Hellström’s (1979) sensation-weighting model. With successive presentation, in comparisons of line length and tone loudness, the first stimulus had the greater weight in determining the subjective difference for short ISIs, the second for longer ISIs. In comparisons of duration (auditory and visual), the second stimulus had the greater weight. For simultaneously presented line lengths, the left stimulus had the greater weight.

Keywords

Stimulus Duration Stimulus Comparison Line Length Stimulus Level Voice Onset Time 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Allan, L. G. (1977). The time-order error in judgments of duration.Canadian Journal of Psychology,31, 24–31.Google Scholar
  2. Allan, L. G., &Gibbon, J. (1994). A new temporal illusion or the TOE once again?Perception & Psychophysics,55, 227–229.Google Scholar
  3. Almkvist, O., Hellström, Å., HÅrdemark, H.-G., &Johansson, T. (1996).Neuropsychological dysfunction two years after subarachnoidal haemorrhage: Relation to acute and long-term brain damage severity (Rep. No. 809). Stockholm: Stockholm University, Department of Psychology.Google Scholar
  4. Baranski, J. V., &Petrusic, W. M. (1992). The discriminability of remembered magnitudes.Memory & Cognition,20, 254–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beaton, A. (1986).Left side, right side: A review of laterality research. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Berliner, J. E., Durlach, N. I., &Braida, L. D. (1977). Intensity perception: VII. Further data on roving-level discrimination and the resolution and bias edge effects.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,61, 1577–1585.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Boas, F. (1882). Über die verschiedenen Formen des Unterschiedsschwellenwertes [On the different forms of the difference limen value].Pflügers Archiv für Physiologie,27, 214–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Chuang, C.-K., &Wang, W. S.-Y. (1978). Psychophysical pitch biases related to vowel quality, intensity difference, and sequential order.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,64, 1004–1014.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Eisler, H. (1976). Experiments on subjective duration 1868-1975: A collection of power function exponents.Psychological Bulletin,83, 1154–1171.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Eisler, H. (1982). On the nature of subjective scales.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,23, 161–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Essick, G. K., Franzén, O., &Whitsel, B. L. (1988). Discrimination and scaling of velocity of stimulus motion across the skin.Somatosensory & Motor Research,6, 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fechner, G. T. (1860).Elemente der Psychophysik [Elements of psychophysics]. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar
  13. Gol’dburt, S. N. (1963). Discrimination between the order and loudness of two short tones in relation to their duration and the interval between them.Fiziologicheskij Zhurnal SSSR imeni I. M. Sechenova,49, 1410–1413.Google Scholar
  14. Grondin, S. (1999). Duration discrimination of empty and filled intervals marked by auditory and visual signals.Perception & Psychophysics,54, 383–394.Google Scholar
  15. Guilford, J. P. (1931). Some empirical tests of the method of paired comparisons.Journal of General Psychology,5, 64–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Guilford, J. P. (1954).Psychometric methods (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  17. Hellström, Å. (1977). Time errors are perceptual: An experimental investigation of duration and a quantitative successive-comparison model.Psychological Research,39, 345–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hellström, Å. (1978). Factors producing and factors not producing time errors: An experiment with loudness comparisons.Perception & Psychophysics,23, 433–444.Google Scholar
  19. Hellström, Å. (1979). Time errors and differential sensation weighting.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,5, 460–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hellström, Å. (1985). The time-order error and its relatives: Mirrors of cognitive processes in comparing.Psychological Bulletin,97, 35–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hellström, Å. (1986). Sensation weighting in comparing: A tool for optimizing discrimination. In B. Berglund, U. Berglund, & R. Teghtsoonian (Eds.),Fechner Day 86 (pp. 89–94). Stockholm: International Society for Psychophysics.Google Scholar
  22. Hellström, Å. (1989a). Discrimination optimization: A governing principle for psychophysics. In D. Vickers & P. L. Smith (Eds.),Human information processing: Measures, mechanisms, and models. Proceedings of the XXIV International Congress of Psychology, Sydney, Australia, 28 August-2 September, 1988 (Vol. 2, pp. 217–227). Amsterdam: Elsevier, North-Holland.Google Scholar
  23. Hellström, Å. (1989b). What happens when we compare two successive stimuli? In G. Ljunggren & S. Dornic (Eds.),Psychophysics in action (pp. 25–39). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
  24. Hellström, Å. (1990). Neuropsychological applications of stimulus comparison tasks. In F. Müller (Ed.),Fechner Day 90 (pp. 205–211). Würzburg: International Society for Psychophysics.Google Scholar
  25. Hellström, Å. (1992). Comparative judgments of successive and simultaneous lateralized stimuli. In G. Borg & G. Neely (Eds.)Fechner Day 92: Proceedings of the Eighth Annual Meeting of the International Society for Psychophysics (pp. 99–104). Stockholm: International Society for Psychophysics.Google Scholar
  26. Hellström, Å. (1993). The normal distribution in scaling subjective stimulus differences: Less “normal” than we think?Perception & Psychophysics,54, 82–92.Google Scholar
  27. Hellström, Å. (2000). Sensation weighting in comparison and discrimination of heaviness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 6–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hellström, Å., &Almkvist, O. (1997). Tone duration discrimination in demented, memory impaired, and healthy elderly.Dementia & Geriatric Cognitive Disorders,8, 49–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hellström, Å., Forssell, L. G., &Fernaeus, S. E. (1989). Early stages of late onset Alzheimer’s disease: V. Psychometric evaluation of perceptual/cognitive processes.Acta Neurologica Scandinavica,79(Suppl. 121), 87–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Helson, H. (1964).Adaptation-level theory. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  31. Holway, A. H., &Pratt, C. C. (1936). The Weber-ratio for intensitive discrimination.Psychological Review,43, 322–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Huttenlocher, J., Hedges, L. V., &Vevea, J. L. (2000). Why do categories affect stimulus judgment?Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,129, 220–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Inomata, S. (1959). The analysis of conditions behind the time-error in the successive comparison of visual length.Japanese Psychological Research,1, 36–54.Google Scholar
  34. Inomata, S. (1963). Comparison of time-error phenomena in different sense modalities.Psychologia,6, 207–214.Google Scholar
  35. Jamieson, D. G., &Petrusic, W. M. (1975a). The dependence of timeerror direction on stimulus range.Canadian Journal of Psychology,29, 175–182.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Jamieson, D. G., &Petrusic, W. M. (1975b). Presentation order effects in duration discrimination.Perception & Psychophysics,17, 197–202.Google Scholar
  37. Jamieson, D. G., &Petrusic, W. M. (1976). On a bias induced by the provision of feedback in psychophysical experiments.Acta Psychologica,40, 199–206.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jamieson, D. G., &Petrusic, W. M. (1978). Feedback versus an illusion in time.Perception,7, 91–96.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jaroszewski, A. (1992). A study of constant (systematic) errors in pitch discrimination of short tone pulses.Acustica,77, 106–110.Google Scholar
  40. John, I. D. (1975). A common mechanism mediating the time-order error and the cross-over effect in comparative judgments of loudness.Australian Journal of Psychology,27, 51–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Köhler, W. (1923). Zur Theorie des Sukzessivvergleichs und der Zeitfehler [On the theory of successive comparison and time-errors].Psychologische Forschung,4, 115–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Link, S. W. (1992).The wave theory of difference and similarity. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  43. Luce, R. D., &Galanter, E. (1963). Discrimination. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, & E. Galanter (Eds.),Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 191–243). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  44. Marks, L. E. (1974). On scales of sensation: Prolegomena to any future psychophysics that will be able to come forth as science.Perception & Psychophysics,16, 358–376.Google Scholar
  45. Masin, S. C. (1993). The inferential theory of errors in comparative judgment.Ricerche di Psicologia,17, 57–71.Google Scholar
  46. Masin, S. C., &Agostini, A. (1990). Time errors in the method of pair comparisons.American Journal of Psychology,103, 487–494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Masin, S. C., &Agostini, A. (1991). Attentional scanning and space errors.Perception & Psychophysics,50, 285–289.Google Scholar
  48. Masin, S. C., &Fanton, V. (1989). An explanation for the presentationorder effect in the method of constant stimuli.Perception & Psychophysics,46, 483–486.Google Scholar
  49. Michels, W. C., &Helson, H. (1954). A quantitative theory of timeorder effects.American Journal of Psychology,67, 327–334.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Needham, J. G. (1934). The time-error as a function of continued experimentation.American Journal of Psychology,46, 558–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Needham, J. G. (1935). The effect of the time interval upon the time error at different intensive levels.Journal of Experimental Psychology,18, 539–543.Google Scholar
  52. Nichelli, P., Venneri, A., Molinari, M., Tavani, F., &Grafman, J. (1993). Precision and accuracy of subjective time estimation in different memory disorders.Cognitive Brain Research,1, 87–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Petrusic, W. M., Baranski, J. V., &Kennedy, R. (1998). Similarity comparisons with remembered and perceived magnitudes: Memory psychophysics and fundamental measurement.Memory & Cognition,26, 1041–1055.Google Scholar
  54. Petrusic, W. M., Harrison, D. H., & Baranski, J. V. (in press). Longterm memory for elementary visual percepts: Memory psychophysics of context and acquisition effects.Perception & Psychophysics.Google Scholar
  55. Postman, L. (1946). The time-error in auditory perception.American Journal of Psychology,59, 193–219.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Pratt, C. C. (1936). The law of disuse.Psychological Review,43, 83–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Rammsayer, T. (1999). Neuropharmacological evidence for different timing mechanisms in humans.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,52B, 273–286.Google Scholar
  58. Rammsayer, T. (2001). Effects of noradrenergic activity on temporal information processes in humans.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,54B, 247–258.Google Scholar
  59. Restle, F. (1961).Psychology of judgment and choice. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  60. Richards, W. (1973). Time reproductions by H.M.Acta Psychologica,37, 279–282.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Schab, F. R., &Crowder, R. G. (1988). The role of succession in temporal cognition: Is the time-order error a recency effect of memory?Perception & Psychophysics,44, 233–242.Google Scholar
  62. Schneider, B., Parker, S., Farrell, G., &Kanow, G. (1976). The perceptual basis of loudness ratio judgments.Perception & Psychophysics,19, 309–320.Google Scholar
  63. Sinclair, R. J., &Burton, H. (1996). Discrimination of vibrotactile frequencies in a delayed pair comparison task.Perception & Psychophysics,58, 680–692.Google Scholar
  64. Stevens, S. S. (1948). Sensation and psychological measurement. In E. G. Boring, H. S. Langfeld, & H. P. Weld (Eds.),Foundations of psychology (pp. 250–268). New York: Wiley.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Stevens, S. S. (1956). The direct estimation of sensory magnitudes—loudness.American Journal of Psychology,69, 1–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Stevens, S. S. (1957). On the psychophysical law.Psychological Review,64, 153–181.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Stott, L. H. (1935). Time-order errors in the discrimination of short tonal durations.Journal of Experimental Psychology,18, 741–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Teghtsoonian, R. (1971). On the exponents in Stevens’ law and the constant in Ekman’s law.Psychological Review,78, 71–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Uchikawa, K. (1983). Purity discrimination: Successive vs simultaneous comparison method.Vision Research,23, 53–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Uselding, D. K. (1977). A temporal order effect in voice onset time discrimination.Language & Speech,20, 366–376.Google Scholar
  71. Vierordt, K. (1868).Der Zeitsinn nach Versuchen [The time-sense according to experiments]. Tübingen: Laupp.Google Scholar
  72. Westheimer.G. (1999). Discrimination of short time intervals by the human observer.Experimental Brain Research,129, 121–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Williams, J. M., Medwedeff, C. H., &Haban, G. (1989). Memory disorders and subjective time estimation.Journal of Clinical & Experimental Neuropsychology,11, 713–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Woodrow, H. (1933). Weight-discrimination with a varying standard.American Journal of Psychology,45, 391–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Woodrow, H. (1935). The effect of practice upon time-order errors in the comparison of temporal intervals.Psychological Review,42, 127–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyStockholm UniversityStockholmSweden

Personalised recommendations