Abstract
In this note it is argued that ΔI=k(I + In)P as an expression for the generalized Law of Weber (Treisman, 1964) is confusing, The expression ΔI=kIP + in should be preferred in the light of the evidence available.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barlow, H. B. Increment thresholds at low intensities considered as signal/noise discrimination.J. Physiol., 1957, 136, 469–488.
Bouman, M. A., Vos, J. J., &Walraven, P. L. Fluctuation theory of luminance and chromaticity discrimination.J. Opt. Soc. Amer., 1963, 53, 121–128.
Latour, P. L. A comparison of two visual threshold models. InStudies in perception dedicated to M. A. Bouman. Soesterberg: Institute for Perception RVO-TNO, 1966. Pp. 93–104.
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.
Treisman, M. Temporal discrimination and the indifference interval: Implications for a model of the “internal clock.”Psychol. Monogr., 1963, 77, No. 13 (Whole No. 576).
Treisman, M. Noise and Weber’s Law: The discrimination of brightness and other dimensions.PsychoI. Rev., 1964, 71, 314–330.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This note was prepared while the author was at Carnegie Institute of Technology. Pittsburgh. Pennsyl vania as recipient of a NATO Science Fellowship. granted by the Netherlands Organization for Pure Scientific Research.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Michon, J.A. Note on the generalized form of Weber’s Law. Perception & Psychophysics 1, 329–330 (1966). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03215797
Received:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03215797