Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 2, Issue 5, pp 201–207 | Cite as

Difference threshold for stimulus length under simultaneous and nonsimultaneous viewing conditions

  • Hiroshi Ono


The present study was concerned with Weber’s Law as it is related to the discriminability of the lengths of lines. Experiments were conducted to investigate three questions: (I) Is Weber’s Law equally applicable to simultaneous and nonsimultaneous viewing conditions? (2) Is the relationship between the stimulus sizes and the values ofDLs described more adequately by the function proposed by Weber or a generalized Weber’s Law stated by Miller? and (3) Is Weber’s Law better approximated by proximal or distal size? It was demonstrated that the discriminability of the lengths of lines follows Weber’s Law under the nonsimultaneous viewing condition, but not under the simultaneous viewing condition. Under the nonsimultaneous viewing condition, it was noted that the generalized Weber’s Law as stated by Miller described the relationship between the DL and stimulus size significantly better than the function proposed by Weber. From the results pertaining to the third question, it was not possible to determine whether the proximal or the distal size follows Weber’s Law more closely.


Visual Angle Comparison Stimulus Viewing Condition Difference Threshold Standard Stimulus 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Boring, E.G.Sensation and perception in the history of experimental psychology. New York: Appleton-Century, 1942.Google Scholar
  2. Brunswik, E. Die Zugänglickeit von Gegenständen für die Wahrnehmung.Arch. ges. Psychol., 1933, 88, 377–418.Google Scholar
  3. Bühler.K.Die Gestaltwahrnehumungen. Stuttgart: Spemann, 1913.Google Scholar
  4. English, H. B., &English, Ava C.A comprehensive dictionary of psychological and psychoanalytical terms. New York: McKay, 1958.Google Scholar
  5. Fechner, C. T.Elemente der Psychophysik. Leipzig: Breitkopf und Hartel, 1860.Google Scholar
  6. Galanter, E. Contemporary psychophysics. InNew directions in psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1962.Google Scholar
  7. Geldard, F. A.The human senses. New York: Wiley, 1953.Google Scholar
  8. Henmon, V. A. C. The time of perception as a measure of differences in sensations.Arch. Phil. Psychol, sci. Math. N. Y., No. 8. 1906.Google Scholar
  9. Kiesow, F. Uber die Vergleichung linearer Strecken und ihre Beziehung zum Weberzchen Gesetze.Arch. ges. Psychol., 1926, 56, 421–451.Google Scholar
  10. Miller, G. A. Sensitivity to changes in the intensity of white noise and its relation to masking and loudness.J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., 1947, 19, 609–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Murphy, G.A historical introduction to modern psychology. (2nd ed.) New York: Harcourt, Brace & Co., 1930.Google Scholar
  12. Pheiffer, C. H. A psychophysical investigation of the discriminal limits of size differences of disks of light. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1949.Google Scholar
  13. Rand, B.The classical psychologists. Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1912.Google Scholar
  14. Thouless, R. R. Phenomenal regression to the real object.Brit. J. Psychol., 1931, 21, 339–359.Google Scholar
  15. Veniar, F. A. Difference thresholds for shape distortion of geometrical squares.J. Psychol., 1948, 26, 461–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Weber, E. H. Der Tastsinn und das Gemeingefühl. In R. Wagner (Ed.),Handworterbuch der Physiologie, III. Braunschweig: Bieweg, 1849.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1967

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hiroshi Ono
    • 1
  1. 1.Stanford UniversitySanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations