Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-02T22:37:34.951Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Relation of the Attributes of Sensation to the Dimensions of the Stimulus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  14 March 2022

Edwin G. Boring
Edwin G. Boring*
Affiliation:
Psychological Laboratory, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It is the traditional view of psychology that the attributes of sensation show a one-to-one correspondence to the dimensions of the stimulus. Some such view is also implicit in the naïve epistemology of the physicist. He often thinks of pitch as if it were the perception of the frequency of a tone, but that view soon runs into difficulties. Within psychology it was Wundt who originally equipped sensation with two attributes, quality and intensity, thus making sensations mirror the more obvious aspects of stimuli which differ as to kind and in degree. Later it became clear to Külpe that extension must be an attribute of visual and tactual sensations because the retina and the skin are areal organs and because extent enters into perception quite as ‘immediately’ as does intensity. A loud sound is not a congeries of faint sounds, nor is a perceived line a row of sensations. In a similar reaction against Wundtian atomism Külpe also added duration (protension) to the list, for a tone that lasts 0.8 sec. yields a different perception from one that lasts 0.6 sec. and yet there is no sense to saying that the first represents a greater number of seried sensations than the second. Thus the four classical attributes of sensation are quality, intensity, extensity and protensity. The conventional view has been that they are respectively correlated with four aspects of the stimulus, and this paper is written with the intention of refuting this view.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , April 1935 , pp. 236 - 245
Copyright
Copyright © Philosophy of Science Association 1935

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 S. S. Stevens, The attributes of tones, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci., 20, 457–459 (1934); cf. Volume and intensity of tones, Amer. J. Psychol., 46, 397–408 (1934); Tonal density, J. Exper. Psychol., 17, 585–592 (1934).

2 Stevens, The relation of pitch to intensity, J. Acoust. Soc. Amer., 6, 150–154 (1935).

3 G. Zurmühl, Abhängigkeit der Tonhöhenempfindung von der Lautstärke und ihre Beziehung zur Heimholtzschen Resonanztheorie des Hörens, Zsch. f. Sinnesphysiol., 61, 40–86 (1930).

4 The precision of the functions shown in Fig. 1 is known. The curves are based on averages. An error appears because the functions for volume and density tend to be ogival about the reference tone, wherever the reference tone may be. However, these functions differ from the form that they would have if entirely independent of the reference tone by an amount that is not large with respect to the probable error of observation. There is probably a small artefact involved.