Skip to main content

Hard andsoft interacting dimensions: Differential effects of dual context on classification

Abstract

In this article, we extend Garner’s speeded classification procedure to investigate processes underlying the interaction of the auditory dimensions pitch, loudness, and timbre. In the experiments reported here, subjects classified attributes on these three auditory dimensions. Our extended procedure, calledmulticlass, is based conceptually on our model of how such dimensions interact; the model explains the perception of attributes from an attended dimension through the action of contextual constraints created by variation along an unattended dimension. Two forms of context are present simultaneously in each multiclass task:intraclass context, variation along the unattended dimension that interferes with the classification of attributes, andredundant context, variation along the unattended dimension that enhances classification. We find that such dual-context situations reliably distinguish two kinds of interacting dimensions. Subjects classifying HARD dimensions, here pitch and timbre, resist the ill effects of intraclass.context and reap gains from redundant context. Subjects classifying SOFT dimensions, here loudness, show interference because the attributes are veiled perceptually in dual context, These findings, we argue, demonstrate the power of the multiclass procedure and fit well our view-that dimensional interaction entails processing both at the level of the stimulus whale and at the level of stimulus attributes.

References

  • Ashhy, F. G., &Gott, R. E. (1988). Decision rules in the perception and categorization of multidimensional stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,14, 33–53,

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashby, F. G., &Perrin, N- A. (1988). Toward a unified theory of similarity and recognition.Psychological Review,95, 124–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felfoldy, G. L., &Garner, W. R. (1971). The effects on speeded classification of implicit and explicit instructions regarding redundant dimensions.Perception & Psychophysics,9, 289–292.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher, H., &Munson, W. A. (1933). Loudness, its definition, measurement and calculation.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,5, 82–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garner, W. R. (1974).The processing of information and structure. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, W. R. (1976). Interaction of stimulus dimensions in concept and choice processes.Cognitive Psychology,8, 98–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garner, W. R. (1981). The analysis of unanalyzed perceptions. In M. Kubovy & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.),Perceptual organization (pp. 119–139). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Garner, W. R., &Felfoldy, G. L. (1970). Integrality of stimulus dimensions in various types of information processing.Cognitive Psychology,1, 225–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garner, W. R., Hake, H. W., &Eriksen, C. W. (1956). Operationism and the concept of perception.Psychological Review,63, 49–159.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grau, J. W.. &Kemler Nelson, D. G. (1988). The distinction between integral and separable dimensions: Evidence for the integrality of pitch and loudness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,117, 347–370.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Imai, S., &.Garner, W. R. (1965). Discriminability and preference for attributes in free and constrained classification.Journal of Experimental Psychology,69, 596–608.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kemler, D. G. (1983a). Exploring and reexploring issues of integrality, perceptual sensitivity, and dimensional salience.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,36, 365–379.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Kemler, D. G. (1983b). Holistic and analytic modes in perceptual and cognitive development. In T. Tighe & B. E. Shepp (Eds.),Perception, cognition, and development: Interactional analyses (pp. 77–102). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krumhansl, C. L. (1978). Concerning the applicability of geometric models to similarity data: The interrelationship between similarity and spatial density.Psychological Review,85, 445–463.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruskal, J. B. (1964). Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis.Psyckometrika,29, 1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockhead, G. R. (1972). Processing dimensional stimuli: A note.Psychological Review,79, 410–419.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lockhead, G. R. (1979). Holistic versus analytic process models: A reply.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,5, 746–755.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockhead, G. R., Gruenewald, P., &King, M. (1978). Holistic vs. attribute repetition effects in classifying stimuli.Memory & Cognition,6, 438–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Martin, R. C., &Caramazza, A. (1980). Classification in well-defined and ill-defined categories: Evidence for common processing strategies.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,109, 320–353.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Medin, D. L., Wattenmaker, W. D., &Hampson, S. E. (1987). Family resemblance, concept cohesiveness, and category construction.Cognitive Psychology,19, 242–279.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Melara, R. D. (1989a). Dimensional interaction between color and pitch.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,15, 69–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melara, R. D. (1989b). Similarity relations among synesthetic stimuli and their attributes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,15, 212–231.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Melara, R. D., & Marks, L. E. (1989).Interaction between auditory dimensions: Timbre, pitch, and loudness. Manuscript submitted fur publication.

  • Melara, R. D., & Marks, L. E. (in press). Perceptual primacy of dimensions: Support for a model of dimensional interaction.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance.

  • Melara, R. D., &O’Brien, T. P. (1987). Interaction between synesthetically corresponding dimensions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,116, 323–336.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Podgorny, P., &Garner, W. R. (1979). Reaction time as a measure of inter- and intraobject visual similarity: Letters of the alphabet.Perception & Psychophysics,26, 37–52.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomerantz, J. R. (1983). Global and local precedence: Selective attention in form and motion perception.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,112, 515–540.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pomerantz, J. R. (1986). Visual form perception: An overview. In E. C. Schwab & H. C. Nusbaum (Eds.),Pattern recognition by humans and machines: Visual perception (pp. 1–30). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pomerantz, J. R., &Garnfr, W. R. (1973). Stimulus configuration in selective attention tasks.Perception & Psychophysics,14, 565–569.

    Google Scholar 

  • Price, J. M. (1979). Software timing for 6500 series microcomputers.Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation,11, 568–571.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shepakd, R. N. (1962a). The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function I.Psvchometrika,27, 125–140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shepard, R. N. (1962b). The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function II.Psychometrika,27, 219–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. B., &Kemler, D. G. (1977). Developmental trends in free classification: Evidence for a new conceptualization of perceptual de velopment.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,24, 279–298.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, L. B., &Kemler, D. G. (1978). Levels of experienced dimensionality in children and adults.Cognitive Psychology,10, 502–532.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Stevens, S. S. (1957). On the psychophysical law.Psychological Review,64, 153–181.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Torcierson, W. S. (1958).Theory and method of scaling. New York. Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood, C. C. (1975). Auditory and phonetic levels of processing in speech perception: Neurophysiological and in formation-processing analyses.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,1, 3–20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

Preparation uf this paper was supported hy N[H Postdoctoral Fellowship F32 HDO7137-02 to Robert Melara and by NIH Grant NS21326 and NSF Grant BNS84-20017 to Lawrence Marks.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Melara, R.D., Marks, L.E. Hard andsoft interacting dimensions: Differential effects of dual context on classification. Perception & Psychophysics 47, 307–325 (1990). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210870

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210870

Keywords

  • Standard Stimulus
  • Redundancy Gain
  • Hard Dimension
  • Distant Stimulus
  • Dimensional Interaction