Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 43, Issue 6, pp 511–525 | Cite as

Magnitude estimation and sensory matching

  • Lawrence E. Marks


Scaling procedures are commonly used to generate sensory matches, in which each match is defined as the set of stimuli that yield a constant average judgment. Five experiments evaluated the principle of “matching-by-scaling” in the magnitude estimation of loudness: (1) Matches derived from magnitude estimates of the loudness of qualitatively different sounds (500-Hz and 2500-Hz tones) change dramatically with changes in the relative intensity levels (contexts) of the stimuli being judged. (2) Small changes in matches apparently can arise from sequential processes of judgment, even when the stimuli are qualitatively identical (all 500 Hz). (3) Even when the effects of sequential processes are minimized by averaging, changing the context induces large changes in loudness matches derived from magnitude estimates of 500-Hz and 2500Hz tones. (4) Changing contextual sets of qualitatively identical stimuli (all 500 Hz) presented to different ears has little effect on interaurally matching values. (5) Matches between 500-Hz and 2500-Hz tones shift with changes in the proportions of presentations of various intensity levels, even when the intensity levels themselves do not change. The results imply that judgments of perceived intensity of qualitatively different stimuli do not always obey the principle that equal sensations yield equal response, and, accordingly, that experiments using scaling methods to generate matches should compare stimuli whose levels of subjective magnitude are roughly the same. The results can be described by a quantitative model containing a parameter that depends on qualitative similarity and that may therefore reflect the degree of overlap in activated sensory channels.


  1. Alba, T. S., &Stevens, S. S. (1964). Relation of brightness to duration and luminance under light- and dark-adaptation.Vision Research,4, 391–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Brindley, G. S. (1960).Physiology of the retina and visual pathway. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
  3. Cohen, N. E. (1934). Equivalence of brightnesses across modalities.American Journal of Psychology,46, 117–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cross, D. V. (1973). Sequential dependencies and regression in psychophysical judgments.Perception & Psychophysics,14, 547–552.Google Scholar
  5. Fletcher, H., &Munson, W. A. (1933). Loudness, its defmition, measurement and calculation.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,5, 82–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Garner, W. R. (1954). Context effects and the validity of loudness scales.Journal of Experimental Psychology,48, 218–224.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Garner, W. R. (1974).The processing of information and structure Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. Hellman, R. P., &Zwislocki, J. J. (1964). Loudness function of a 1000-cps tone in the presence of a masking noise.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,36, 1618–1627.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Helson, H. (1964).Adaptation-level theory: An experimental and systematic approach to behavior. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  10. Holungworth, H. L. (1916). The central tendency of judgment.Journal of Philosophy, Psychology, & Scientific Methods,7, 461–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Howes, D. H. (1950). The loudness of multicomponent tones.American Journal of Psychology,63, 1–30.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Jesteadt, W., Luce, R. D., &Green, D. M. (1977). Sequential effects in judgments of loudness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,3, 92–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kiang, N. Y.-S., Watanabe, T., Thomas, E. C., &Clark, L. F. (1965).Discharge patterns of single fibers in the cat’s auditory nerve. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  14. Lim, L. S., Rabinowitz, W. M., Braida, L. D., &Durlach, N. I. (1977). Intensity perception: VIII. Loudness comparisons between different types of stimuli.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,62, 1256–1267.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Lockhead, G. R., &King, M. C. (1983). A memory model of sequential effects in scaling tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,9, 461–473.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Marks, L. E. (1974).Sensory processes: Thenew psychophysics. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  17. Marks, L. E. (1979). A theory of loudness and loudness judgments.Psychological Review,86, 256–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Marks, L. E., Stevens, J. C., Bartoshuk, L. M., Gent, J. F., Rifkin, B., &Stone, V. K. (1988). Magnitude matching: The measurement of taste and smell.Chemical Senses,13, 63–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Marks, L. E., Szczesiul, R., &Ohlott, P. (1986). On the cross-modal perception of intensity.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,12, 517–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Melamed, L. E. (1970). The role of response processes in the formation of cross-modality assimilation effects.Perception & Psychophysics,8, 185–188.Google Scholar
  21. Mellers, B. A., &Birnbaum, M. H. (1982). Loci of contextual effects in judgment.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,8, 582–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Parducci, A. (1965). Category judgment: A range-frequency model.Psychological Review,72, 407–418.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Parducci, A., Knobel, S., &Thomas, C. (1976). Independent contexts for category ratings: A range-frequency analysis.Perception & Psychophysics,20, 360–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Parducci, A., &Perrett, L. F. (1971). Category rating scales: Effects of relative spacing and frequency of stimulus values.Journal of Experimental Psychology Monographs,89, 427–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Pollack, I. (1965). Iterative techniques for unbiased rating scales.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,17, 139–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Raab, D. H. (1962). Magnitude estimation of the brightness of brief foveal stimuli.Science,135, 42–44.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. riskey, D., & Desor, J. (1980). Independence and nonindependence between taste contexts. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  28. Robinson, D. W., &Dadson, R. S. (1956). A re-determination of the equal-loudness relations for pure tones.British Journal of Applied Physics,7, 166–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Smith, K., &Hardy, A. H. (1961). Effects of context on the subjective equation of auditory and visual intensities.Science,134, 1623–1624.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Smith, L. B., &Kilroy, M. C. (1979). A continuum of dimensional separability.Perception & Psychophysics,25, 285–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stevens, J. C., &Hall, J. W. (1966). Brightness and loudness as functions of stimulus duration.Perception & Psychophysics,1, 319–327.Google Scholar
  32. Stevens, J. C.; &Marks, L. E. (1980). Cross-modality matching functions generated by the method of magnitude estimation.Perception & Psychophysics,27, 379–389.Google Scholar
  33. Stevens, J. C., &Stevens, S. S. (1963). Brightness function: Effects of adaptation.Journal ofthe Optical Society of America,53, 375–385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Stevens, S. S. (1975).Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual, neural, and social prospects. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  35. Stevens, S. S., &Galanter, E. (1957). Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen perceptual continua.Journal of Experimental Psychology,54, 377–411.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Vollmecke, T. A. (1987). The influence of context on sweetness and pleasantness evaluation of beverages. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Philadelphia.Google Scholar
  37. Ward, L. M. (1973). Repeated magnitude estimations with a variable standard: Sequential effects and other properties.Perception & Psychophysics,13, 193–200.Google Scholar
  38. Ward, L. M. (1982). Mixed-modality psychophysical scaling: Sequential effects and other properties.Perception & Psychophysics,31, 53–62.Google Scholar
  39. Wood, C. C. (1975). Auditory and phonetic levels of processing in speech perception: Neurophysiological and information-processing analyses.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,1, 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Zwicker, E., &Scharf, B. (1965). A model of loudness summation.Psychological Review,72, 3–26.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lawrence E. Marks
    • 1
  1. 1.John B. Pierce Foundation LaboratoryYale UniversityNew Haven

Personalised recommendations