Abstract
This study examined the ability of an asymmetric multidimensional scaling program (DEDICOM) to reveal information about letter-perception processes. To demonstrate its potential, we applied it to the controversy concerning local-to-global versus global-to-local letter perception. These two theories lead to different predictions about stimulus confusion asymmetries. Since DEDICOM is capable of recovering the structure of asymmetric or directional patterns, it should reveal whether a stimulus-response confusion matrix contains patterns of asymmetry more consistent with one or the other perceptual theory. This was tested using two data sets. The first (from Lupker, 1979) revealed an additive hierarchy of asymmetry strongly consistent with global-tolocal processing, although unexpected additional structure and reliable anomalies indicated the need for a more refined theoretical account. The second (a full alphabetic confusion matrix combining data from Gilmore et al., 1979; Loomis, 1982; and Towasend, 1971) revealed five distinct patterns, each consisting of transformations attributable to the failure to detect specific local letter features. This solution strengthened support for local-to-global processing, in sharp contrast to the first analysis. Possible reasons for this divergence are discussed, including differences in the stimuli, exposure durations, and a hypothetical two-stage process of perception. Despite their differences, both solutions demonstrated how asymmetric scaling can reveal structure in asymmetries, which is relevant to perceptual theory and which would have been difficult to recover by other means.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Appelle, S. (1972). Perception and discrimination as a function of stimulus orientation: The “oblique effect” in man and animals.Psychological Bulletin,78, 266–278.
Appelman, I. B., &Mayzner, M. S. (1982). Application of geometric models to letter recognition: Distance and density.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,111, 60–100.
Bentler, P. M., &Weeks, D. G. (1978). Restricted and multidimenstonal scaling models.Journal of Mathematical Psychology,17, 138–151.
Bouma, H. (1971). Visual recognition of isolated lower-case lettersVision Research,11, 459–474.
Cattell, R. I. (1978).The sctentific use of factor analysis. New York. Plenum Press.
Chino, N. (1978). A graphical technique for representing the asymmetric relationships betweenn objects.Behaviormetrika, , 23–40.
Coffin, S. (1978). Spatial frequency analysis of block letters does not predict experimental confusions.Perception & Psychophysics,23, 69–74.
Constantine, A. G., &Gower, J. C. (1978). Graphical representation of asymmetric matrices.Applied Statistics,27, 294–304
Garner, W. R., &Haun, F. (1978). Letter identification as a function of type of perceptual limitation and type of attribute.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,4, 199–209
Gever, L. H., &Dewald, C. G. (1973). Feature lists and confusion matrices.Perception & Psychophysics,14, 471–482.
Gilmore, G. C., &Hersh, H. (1979) Multidimensional letter similarity: A reply to Mewhort and Dow.Perception & Psychophyslcs,26, 501–502.
Gilmore, G. C., Hersh, H., Caramazza, A., &Griffin, J. (1979). Multidimensional letter similarity derived from recognition errors.Perception & Psychophysics,25, 425–431.
Goldstein, L. (1980) Bias and asymmetry in speech perception. In V A Fromkin (Ed.),Errors in linguistic performance Slips of the tongue, ear, pen, and hand. New York: Academic Press.
Gower, J C. (1977). The analysis of asymmetry and orthogonality In J. R Barra et al. (Eds.),Recent developments in statistics. Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Harris, C. W., &Kaiser, H. F. (1964) Oblique factor analytic solutions by orthogonal transformations.Psychometrika,29, 347–362.
Harshman, R. (1978). Models for analysis of asyrametrical relationships among N objects or stimuli. Paper presented at the first Joint Meeting of the Psychometric Society and the Society for Mathematical Psychology, McMaster University.
Harshman, R. (1980).Alternating least squares estimation of the singledomain DEDICOM model (Unpublished technical memorandum). Murray Hill, NJ: Bell Laboratories
Harshman, R. (1981)DEDICOM raulItdtmensional analysis of skew symmemc data. Part I Theory (Unpublished technical memorandum). Murray Hill, NJ: Bell Laboratories.
Harshman, R., Green, P., Wind, Y, &Lundv, M E. (1982) A model for the analysis of asymmetric data in marketing research.Marketing Science,1, 205–242
Harshman, R., &Lundy, M. E. (1985).Multidimensional analysts of preference structures (Research Bulletin No. 639). London: University of Western Ontario, Department of Psychology.
Keren, G, &Baggen, S. (1981). Recognition models of alphanumeric character.Perception & Psychophysics,29, 234–246.
Krumhansl, C. L. (1978). Concerning the applicability of geometric models to similartty data The interrelationship between similarity and spatial densityPsychological Review,85, 445–463.
Krumhansl, C. L. (1982). Density versus feature weights as predictors of visual identifications’ Comment on Appelman and Mayzner.Journal of Experimental Psychology. General,111, 101–108.
Kunnapas, T. (1966). Visual perception of capital lettersScandinavian Journal of Psychology,7, 189–196
Lindsay, P. H., &Norman, D. A (1972).Human information processing. New York. Academic Press
Loomis, J. M. (1982). Analysis of tactile and visual confusion matrices.Perception & Psychophysics,31, 41–52.
Luce, R. D. (1963). Detection and recognition. In R. D. Luce, R. B Bush, & E Galanter (Eds.),Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol 1) New York: Wiley.
Lupker, S. J. (1979). On the nature of perceptual information druring letter perceptionPerception & Psychophysics,25, 303–312.
Marr, D., &Hildreth, E. C (1980). Theory of edge detection.Proceedings of the Royal Society of London,B207, 187–217.
Mayzner, M. S., &Tresselt, M. E. (1965). Tables of single-letter and digram frequency counts for various word-length and letter-position combinationsPsychonomic Monograph Supplements,1(2, Whole No 2), 13–32.
Mewhort, D., &Dow, M (1979). Multidimensional letter similarlty. A confound with brightness?Perception & Psychophysics,26, 325–326.
Nakatani, L. H. (1972). Confusion-choice model for multidunensional psychophysics.Journal of Mathematical Psychology,9, 104–129
Navon, D. (1977). Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in wsual perception.Cognitive Psychology,9, 353–383
Navon, D. (1981). Do attention and decision follow perception? Comment on Miller. Journal of Experimental Psychology.Human Perception & Performance,7, 1175–1182.
Neisser, U. (1967).Cognitive psychology. New York. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Selfridge, O. (1959). Pandemonium. A paradigm for learning. InSymposium on the Mechantzation of Thought Processes. London: H. M. Stationary Office.
Takane, Y., &Shibavama, T. (1985). Comparison of models for stimulus recognition data.Proceedings of the Multidimensional Data Analysis Workshop. Leiden: DSWO Press.
Tobler, W. (1976-1977). Spaual interaction patterns.Journal of Environmental Systems,6, 271–275
Townsend, J. T. (1971). Theoretical analysis of an alphabetic confusion matrix.Perception & Psychophysics,9, 40–50.
Townsend, J. T., &Ashby, F. G. (1982). Experimental test of contemporary mathematical models of visual letter recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,8, 834–864.
Townsend, J. T., Hu, G G., &Ashby, F. G. (1980). A test of visual feature sampling independence with orthogonal straight lines.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,15, 163–166.
Townsend, J. T., Hu, G. G., &Evans, R. J. (1984). Modeling feature perception in brief displays with evidence for positive interdependencies.Perception & Psychophysics,36, 35–49.
Trbisman, A., &Gelade, G. (1980). A feature integration theory of attention.Cognitive Psychology,12, 97–136.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity.Psychological Review,84, 327–352.
Wandmacher, J. (1976). Multicomponent theory of perception.Psychological Research,39, 17–37.
Ward, L. M. (1982). Determinants of attention to local and global features of visual forms.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perceptton& Performance,8, 562–581.
Weinberg, S. L., Carroll, J. D., &Cohen, H. S. (1984). Confidence regions for INDSCAL using the jackknife and bootstrap techniques.Psychometrika,49, 475–491.
Wolford, G. (1975). Perturbation model for letter identification.Psychological Review,82, 184–199.
Young, F. W. (1974, August 20–24). An asymmetric Euclidean model for multiprocess asymmetric data. InTheory, methods, and applications of multidimensional scaling and related techniques (Proceedings of the U.S.-Japan Joint Seminar on Multidimensional Scaling. University of California at San Diego).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The two authors contributed equally to the work reported in this manuscript; the order of authorship is alphabetical.
Louis Goldstein, who collaborated with the second author in 1975 on development of a DEDICOM method for the analysis of stimulus confusions, has indirectly made important contributions to this paper His work with Harshman was done before the special propemes of skewsymmetric DEDICOM were well understood. Nonetheless, those early efforts (aimed specifically at the analysis of phonetic confusions) laid the groundwork for the eventual understanding that made the current paper possible. This research was supported by a grant from NSERC (A7896) to the second author, and an NSERC postgraduate scholarship awarded to the first author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dawson, M.R.W., Harshman, R.A. The multidimensional analysis of asymmetries in alphabetic confusion matrices: Evidence for global-to-local and local-to-global processing. Perception & Psychophysics 40, 370–383 (1986). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208196
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208196