Abstract
Magnitude estimations involving spatial characteristics, such as distance, typically show a compressive function when estimates are made from memory. In particular, as the magnitude of a property grows larger and larger, estimates become more and more inaccurate, with increasing underestimates of the actual magnitude. Previous theories have attempted to explain this difference by supposing that magnitude estimation was accomplished through a reperceptual process, in which the errors of perception are magnified, or a transformation process, in which the memory trace undergoes a consistent alteration toward a more schematic form. The present experiments present evidence in support of an uncertainty hypothesis. When subjects are uncertain of the actual value of a distance, they are forced to guess on the basis of the mean distance they encountered, because they are unable to retrieve the information accurately. When they can retrieve the information, they are more certain and their estimates are more accurate. This hypothesis was also extended to integrative conditions in which the subjects were presented with the stimulus display in a piecemeal fashion. In these cases, distance estimates were derived by combining spatial representations. This method of presentation caused distance estimates to become less accurate.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Algom, D. (1992). Memory psychophysics: An examination of its perceptual and cognitive prospects. In D. Algom (Ed.),Psychophysical approaches to cognition (pp. 441–513). New York: Elsevier, North-Holland.
Algom, D., &Lobel, S. (1994). Psychophysics in the field: Perception and memory for labor pain.Perception & Psychophysics,55, 133–141.
Algom, D., Wolf, Y., &Bergman, B. (1985). Integration of stimulus dimensions in perception and memory: Composition rules and psychophysical relations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,114, 451–471.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932).Remembering. London: Cambridge University Press.
Björkman, M., Lundberg, I., &Tärnblom, S. (1960). On the relationship between memory and percept: A psychophysical approach.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,1, 136–144.
Chew, E. I., &Richardson, T. E. (1980). The relationship between perceptual and memorial psychophysics.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,16, 25–26.
Ekman, G., &Junge, K. (1961). Psychophysical relations in visual perception of length, area, and volume.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology,2, 1–10.
Holyoak, K. J., &Mah, W. A. (1982). Cognitive reference points in judgments of symbolic magnitude.Cognitive Psychology,14, 328–352.
Huttenlocher, J., Hedges, L. V., &Duncan, S. (1991). Categories and particulars: Prototype effects in estimating spatial location.Psychological Review,98, 352–376.
Kemp, S. (1988). Memorial psychophysics for visual area: The effect of retention interval.Memory & Cognition,16, 431–436.
Kerst, S. M., &Howard, J. H. (1978). Memory psychophysics for visual area and length.Memory & Cognition,6, 327–335.
McNamara, T. P., Ratcliff, R., &McKoon, G. (1984). The mental representation of knowledge acquired from maps.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,10, 723–732.
McNamara, T. P., &LeSueur, L. L. (1989). Mental representations of spatial and nonspatial relations.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,41A, 215–233.
Moyer, R. S., Bradley, D. R., Sorensen, M. H., Whiting, J. C., &Mansfield, D. P. (1978). Psychophysical functions for perceived and remembered size.Science,200, 330–332.
Moyer, R. S., Sklarew, P., &Whiting, J. (1978). Memory psychophysics. In H. Geissler & P. Petzold (Eds.),Psychophysical judgment and the process of perception (pp. 35–46). New York: Elsevier, North-Holland.
Nelson, T. O., &Chaiklin, S. (1980). Immediate memory for spatial location.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,5, 529–545.
Sadalla, E. K., Burroughs, W. J., &Staplin, L. J. (1980). Reference points in spatial cognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,6, 516–528.
Shepard, R. N., &Chipman, S. (1970). Second order isomorphism of internal representations: Shapes of states.Cognitive Psychology,1, 1–17.
Stevens, A., &Coupe, P. (1978). Distortions in judged spatial relations.Cognitive Psychology,10, 422–437.
Stevens, S. S., &Galanter, E. H. (1957). Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen perceptual continua.Journal of Experimental Psychology,54, 377–411.
Stevens, S. S., &Greenbaum, H. B. (1966). Regression effect in psychophysical judgment.Perception & Psychophysics,1, 439–446.
Teghtsoonian, R. (1971). On the exponents in Stevens’ law and the constant in Ekman’s law.Psychological Review,78, 71–80.
Teghtsoonian, R. (1973). Range effects in psychophysical scaling and a revision of Stevens’ law.American Journal of Psychology,86, 3–27.
Thorndyke, P. W. (1981). Distance estimation from cognitive maps.Cognitive Psychology,13, 526–550.
Wiest, W. M., &Bell, B. (1985). Stevens’ exponent for psychophysical scaling of perceived, remembered, and inferred distance.Psychological Bulletin,98, 457–470.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported in part by NSF Grant SRB-93-09564 awarded to D.E.I., and by NIMH National Research Service Award MH14257 to the University of Illinois while the first author was a postdoctoral trainee in the Quantitative Methods Program of the Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Radvansky, G.A., Carlson-Radvansky, L.A. & Irwin, D.E. Uncertainty in estimating distances from memory. Memory & Cognition 23, 596–606 (1995). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197261
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197261