Abstract
The dynamic range (DR) of a sensory system is the span (usually given in log units) from the lowest to highest intensities over which a continuously graded response is evoked, and may be a distinctive feature of each such system. Teghtsoonian (1971) proposed that, although DR varies widely over sensory systems, itssubjective size (SDR) is invariant. Assuming the psychophysical power law, the exponent for any continuum is given by the ratio of subjective span to DR, both quantities expressed logarithmically. Thus, exponents are inversely related to DR and may be interpreted as indexes of it. Because DR can be difficult or even dangerous to measure directly, we sought to define a smaller range representing some fixed proportion of DR that could be used in its place to test the hypothesis of an invariant subjective range. Observers manipulated the intensities of five target continua to produce the broadest range they found acceptable and reasonably comfortable, a range of acceptable stimulus intensities (RASIN). Combined with an assumed constant SDR (derived from previous research), RASINs accurately predicted exponents obtained by magnitude production from the same observers on the five continua, as well as exponents reported in the literature.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Borg, G. (1982). A category scale with ratio properties for intermodal and interindividual comparisons. In H.-G. Geissler & P. Petzold (Eds.),Psychophysical judgment and the process of perception (pp. 25–34). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Borg, G. (1990). A general model for interindividual comparisons. In W. J. Baker, M. H. Hyland, R. Van Hezewijk, & S. Terwee (Eds.),Recent trends in theoretical psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 439–444). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Cross, D. V., Tursky, B., &Lodge, M. (1975). The role of regression and range effects in determination of the power function for electric shock.Perception & Psychophysics,18, 9–14.
Green, B. G., Shaffer, G. S., &Gilmore, M. M. (1993). Derivation and evaluation of a semantic scale of oral sensation magnitude with apparent ratio properties.Chemical Senses,18, 683–702.
Kaczmarek, K. A., Webster, J. G., &Radwin, R. G. (1992). Maximal dynamic range electrotactile stimulation waveforms.IEEE Transactions on Biomedical Engineering,39, 701–715.
Laming, D. (1989). Experimental evidence for Fechner’s and Stevens’s laws.Behavioral & Brain Sciences,12, 277–281.
Link, S. W. (1992).The wave theory of difference and similarity. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lockhead, G. R. (1992). Psychophysical scaling: Judgments of attributes or objects?Behavioral & Brain Sciences,15, 543–558.
Rule, S. J. (1969). Average exponent from magnitude production.Psychometrika,34, 233–235.
Sternbach, R. A., &Tursky, B. (1964). On the psychophysical power function in electric shock.Psychonomic Science,1, 217–218.
Stevens, J. C., &Cain, W. S. (1970). Effort in isometric muscular contractions related to force level and duration.Perception & Psychophysics,8, 240–244.
Stevens, J. C., &Mack, J. D. (1959). Scales of apparent force.Journal of Experimental Psychology,58, 405–413.
Stevens, J. C., &Rubin, L. L. (1970). Psychophysical scales of apparent heaviness and the size-weight illusion.Perception & Psychophysics,8, 225–230.
Stevens, S. S. (1975).Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual, neural, and social prospects. New York: Wiley.
Stevens, S. S., Carton, A. S., &Shickman, G. M. (1958). A scale of apparent intensity of electric shock.Journal of Experimental Psychology,56, 328–334.
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.
Teghtsoonian, R. (1974). On facts and theories in psychophysics: Does Ekman’s law exist? In H. R. Moskowitz, B. Scharf, & J. C. Stevens (Eds.),Sensation and measurement: Papers in honor of S. S. Stevens (pp. 167–176). Holland: D. Reidel.
Teghtsoonian, R., &Teghtsoonian, M. (1978). Range and regression effects in magnitude scaling.Perception & Psychophysics,24, 305–314.
Teghtsoonian, R., &Teghtsoonian, M. (1982). Perceived effort in sniffing: The effects of sniff pressure and resistance.Perception & Psychophysics,31, 324–329.
Teghtsoonian, R., Teghtsoonian, M., &Karlsson, J.-G. (1981). The limits of perceived magnitude: Comparison among individuals and among perceptual continua.Acta Psychologica,49, 83–94.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported, in part, by Grant MH39515 from the National Institute of Mental Health to R.T.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Teghtsoonian, R., Teghtsoonian, M. Range of acceptable stimulus intensities: An estimator of dynamic range for intensive perceptual continua. Perception & Psychophysics 59, 721–728 (1997). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206018
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206018