Advertisement

Semiotics 1980 pp 319-330 | Cite as

The Measurement of Comentropy Transfer Rates

  • Richard Lo

Abstract

Most people have heard of a game that children play called “Hangman.” Each player tries to guess serially at the letters in the word that the other player has chosen, and every letter guessed incorrectly contributes to a penalty. But most of the time, the letters are correctly guessed. Given a good familiarity with a language, say American, most people would guess that the letter “n” would usually follow, if “a” were the preceding letter. Not only that, but the more letters that we know in a word, the easier it becomes to guess at the succeeding letters. Thus, if we are shown the following, “Experi,” most people would easily guess that what followed would be “ment,” since there are only a few logical choices. So it seems that there is a lot of redundancy built into a language such as American, or for that matter, any other language. But the problem remains in how to obtain a good measurement of this level of redundancy. How can it be measured?

Keywords

Individual Letter Placement Error Word Shape Semiotic Process Confusion Error 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    C. Pearson, Lab Manual for Semiotics Georgia Institute of Technology, (Publication no. 017–16006–0), Atlanta (1975).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.M. Cattell, Ueber die Zeit der Erkennung und Benennung von Schriftzeichen, Bildern und Farben, Philos. Stud. 2:635–650 (1885).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    C.E. Shannon, A mathematical theory of communication, Bell System Tech. Jour. 27:279–423, 623–656 (1948).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    C. Pearson, “Semiotics and the Measurement of Shape,” Seminar Presentation at the Technische Universitaet Berlin, (July 1979).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    C.E. Shannon, Prediction and entropy in printed English, Bell System Tech. Jour. 30:50–64 (1951).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    G.A. Miller, J.S. Bruner, and L. Postman, Familiarity of letter sequences and tachistoscopic identification, Jour, of Gen. Psychol. 50: 129–139 (1954).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. Sperling, The infromation available in brief visual presentations, Psychol. Monographs: General and Applied 74:1–29 (1960).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. Pearson, An Empirical Concept of Word Shape, Paper presented at the Second Annual Conference of the Semiotic Society of America, Denver (1977).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C. Pearson, A new law of information: An empirical regularity between word shapes and their interpretation, Paper presented at the American Society for Information Science, New York (1978).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    C. Pearson, Information Decay in Immediate Memory: A Second-Order Correction to the Law of Word Interpretation, Paper presented at the Second International Semiotics Congress in Vienna (1979).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D.E. Broadbent, A mechanical model for human attention and immediate memory, Psychol. Review No. 3, 64:205–215 (1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    G. Sperling, Successive approximations to a model for short term memory, Acta Psychologica 27:285–292 (19 (1967).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. Blanzer and W. H. Clark, Accuracy of perceptual recall: An analysis of organization, Jour.of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 1: 289–299 (1962).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Richard Lo
    • 1
  1. 1.SemLabGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA

Personalised recommendations