Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-f46jp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-08T11:56:13.539Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multidimensional Scaling Models for Reaction Times and Same-Different Judgments

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Yoshio Takane  and
Justine Sergent
Yoshio Takane*
Affiliation:
McGill University
Justine Sergent
Affiliation:
McGill University
*
Requests for reprints should be sent to Yoshio Takane, Department of Psychology, McGill University, 1205 Avenue Docteur Penfield, Montreal, Quebec, H3A 1B1, Canada.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A method for joint analysis of reaction times and same-different judgments is discussed. A set of stimuli is assumed to have some parametric representation which uniquely defines dissimilarities between the stimuli. Those dissimilarities are then related to the observed reaction times and same-different judgments through a model of psychological processes. Three representation models of dissimilarities are considered, the Minkowski power distance model, the linear model, and Tversky's feature matching model. Maximum likelihood estimation procedures are developed and implemented in the form of a FORTRAN program. An example is given to illustrate the kind of analyses that can be performed by the proposed method.

Keywords

Minkowski power distance modelfeature matching modelmaximum likelihood estimationAIC
Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 48 , Issue 3 , September 1983 , pp. 393 - 423
Copyright
Copyright © 1983 The Psychometric Society

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.)

Footnotes

The work reported in this paper is supported by Grant A6394 to the first author from the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada. Portions of this study have been presented at the Psychometric Society meeting in Chapel Hill, N.C., in May, 1981. We thank Tony Marley, Jim Ramsay and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. MAXRT, a computer program which performs the computations described in this paper may be obtained by writing to the first author.

References

Reference Notes

Ramsay, J. O. Some models for similarity. A paper presented at the European meeting of the Psychometric Society, Groningen, The Netherlands, 1980.Google Scholar
Furnas, G. W. Personal communication.Google Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. Personal communication.Google Scholar
Koopman, R. F., & Cooper, M. Some problems with Minkowski distance models in multidimensional scaling. Paper presented at the Psychometric Society meeting, Stanford, 1974.Google Scholar
Sergent, J. & Takane, Y. Structures in two-choice reaction time data. A manuscript in preparation.Google Scholar

References

Akaike, H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 1974, 19, 716–723.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arabie, P. & Carroll, J. D. MAPCLUS: a mathematical programming approach to fitting the ADCLUS model. Psychometrika, 1980, 45, 211–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Attneave, F. Dimensions of similarity. American Journal of Psychology, 1950, 63, 516–556.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carroll, J. D. & Chang, J. J. Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an N-way generalization of “Eckart-Young” decomposition. Psychometrika, 1970, 35, 283–319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chocholle, R. Variation des temps de reaction auditifs en fonction de l'intensite a diverses frequences. L'Annee Psychologique, 1940, 41, 65–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Coombs, C. H. A theory of data, New York: Wiley, 1964.Google Scholar
Curtis, D. W., Paulos, M. A. & Rule, S. J. Relation between disjunctive reaction time and stimulus difference. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973, 99, 167–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davies, G. M., Ellis, H. D. & Shepherd, J. W. Cue saliency in faces as assessed by the “Photofit” technique. Perception, 1977, 6, 263–269.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ellis, H. D. Recognising faces. British Journal of Psychology, 1975, 66, 409–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fishburn, P. C. Lexicographic additive differences. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1980, 21, 191–218.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garner, W. R. Aspects of a stimulus: Features, dimensions, and configurations. In Rosch, E., Lloyd, B. B. (Eds.), Cognition and Categorization, Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1978.Google Scholar
Green, D. M. & Swets, J. A. Signal detection theory and psychophysics, New York: Krieger, 1966.Google Scholar
Grice, G. R., Nullmeyer, R. & Spiker, V. A. Application of variable criterion theory to choice reaction time. Perception & Psychophysics, 1977, 22, 431–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hefner, R. A. Extensions of the law of comparative judgement to discriminable and multidimensional stimuli. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, 1958.Google Scholar
Hyman, R. & Well, A. Judgment of similarity and spatial models. Perception & Psychophysics, 1967, 2, 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hyman, R. & Well, A. Perceptual separability and spatial models. Perception & Psychophysics, 1968, 3, 161–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ida, M. The application of the Weibull distribution to the analysis of the reaction time data. Japanese Psychological Research, 1980, 22, 207–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Johnson, N. L. & Kotz, S. Distributions in statistics: Continuous univariate distributions—I, Boston: Houghton Mifflins, 1970.Google Scholar
Johnson, S. C. Hierarchical clustering scheme. Psychometrika, 1967, 32, 241–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keren, G. & Baggen, S. Recognition models of alphanumeric characters. Perception & Psychophysics, 1981, 29, 234–246.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krueger, L. E. A theory of perceptual matching. Psychological Review, 1978, 85, 278–304.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Krumhansl, C. L. Concerning the applicability of geometric models to similarity data: The interrelationship between similarity and spatial density. Psychological Review, 1978, 84, 445–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 1964, 29, 1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J. B. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: a numerical method. Psychometrika, 1964, 29, 115–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LaBerge, D. A recruitment theory of simple behavior. Psychometrika, 1962, 27, 375–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Laming, D. Mathematical Psychology, London: Academic Press, 1973.Google Scholar
Link, S. W. Applying RT deadlines to discrimination reaction time. Psychonomic Science, 1971, 25, 355–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Link, S. W. The relative judgment theory of two choice response time. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1975, 12, 114–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Link, S. W. & Tindall, A. D. Speed and accuracy in comparative judgments of line length. Perception & Psychophysics, 1971, 9, 284–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lockhead, G. R. Processing dimensional stimuli: a note. Psychological Review, 1972, 79, 410–419.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lockhead, G. R. Holistic versus analytic process models: A reply. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1979, 5, 746–755.Google ScholarPubMed
Lord, F. M. & Novick, M. R. Statistical theories of mental test scores, Menlo Park, Calif.: Addision-Wesley, 1968.Google Scholar
Marley, A. A. J. Multivariate stochastic processes compatible with “aspect” models of similarity and choice. Psychometrika, 1981, 46, 421–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGill, W. J. & Gibbon, J. The general gamma distribution and reaction times. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1965, 2, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Medin, D. L. & Schaffer, M. M. Context theory of classification learning. Psychological Review, 1978, 85, 207–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, J. Multidimensional same-different judgments: evidence against independent comparisons of dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1978, 4, 411–422.Google ScholarPubMed
Monahan, J. S. & Lockhead, G. R. Identification of integral stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1977, 196, 94–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nickerson, R. S. Same-different reaction times with multi-attribute stimulus differences. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1967, 24, 543–554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nickerson, R. S. Binary-classification reaction time: a review of some studies of human information-processing capabilities. Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, 1972, 4, 275–318.Google Scholar
Ollman, R. Fast guesses in choice reaction time. Psychonomic Science, 1966, 6, 155–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrusic, W. M. & Jamieson, D. G. Relation between probability of preferential choice and time to choose changes with practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1978, 4, 471–482.Google Scholar
Podgorny, P. Deciding that objects are the same. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, 1980.Google Scholar
Podgorny, P., Garner, W. R. Reaction time as a measure of inter- and intraobject visual similarity: letters of the alphabet. Perception & Psychophysics, 1979, 26, 37–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Posner, M. I. Chronometric Explorations of Mind, Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1978.Google Scholar
Ramsay, J. O. Maximum likelihood estimation in multidimensional scaling. Psychometrika, 1977, 42, 241–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsay, J. O. Confidence regions for multidimensional scaling analysis. Psychometrika, 1978, 43, 145–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsay, J. O. Joint analysis of direct ratings, pairwise preferences and dissimilarities. Psychometrika, 1980, 45, 149–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ramsay, J. O. Some statistical approaches to multidimensional scaling. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Restle, F. Psychology of judgment and choice, New York: Wiley, 1961.Google Scholar
Rock, I. Orientation and form, New York: Academic Press, 1973.Google Scholar
Sergent, J. About face: Left-hemisphere involvement in processing physiognomies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1982, 8, 1–14.Google ScholarPubMed
Sergent, J. & Bindra, D. Differential hemispheric processing of faces: methodological considerations and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 1981, 89, 541–554.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shepard, R. N. The analysis of proximities: multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function, I & II. Psychometrika, 1962, 27, 125–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N. Attention and the metric structure of the stimulus space. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1964, 1, 54–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N. Representation of structure in similarity data: problems and prospects. Psychometrika, 1974, 39, 373–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N. The circumplex and related topological manifolds in the study of perception. In Shye, S. (Eds.), Theory construction and data analysis in the social sciences, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1978.Google Scholar
Shepard, R. N. & Arabie, P. Additive clustering: Representation of similarities as combinations of discrete overlapping properties. Psychological Review, 1979, 86, 87–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R. N., Kilpatric, D. W. & Cunningham, J. P. The internal representation of numbers. Cognitive Psychology, 1975, 7, 82–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sorkin, R. D. Extension of the theory of signal detectability to matching procedures in psychoacoustics. The Journal of Acoustic Society of America, 1962, 34, 1745–1751.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stone, M. Models for choice-reaction time. Psychometrika, 1960, 25, 251–260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takane, Y. A maximum likelihood method for nonmetric multidimensional scaling: I. The case in which all empirical pairwise orderings are independent—theory and evaluations. Japanese Psychological Research, 1978, 20, 7–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takane, Y. Multidimensional successive categories scaling: a maximum likelihood method. Psychometrika, 1981, 46, 9–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takane, Y. Maximum likelihood additivity analysis. Psychometrika, 1982, 47, 225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takane, Y. & Carroll, J. D. Nonmetric maximum likelihood multidimensional scaling from directional rankings of similarities. Psychometrika, 1981, 46, 389–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Torgerson, W. S. Theory and methods of scaling, New York: Wiley, 1958.Google Scholar
Tversky, A. Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 1977, 84, 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winsberg, S., & Ramsay, J. O. Analysis of pairwise preference data using integrated B-splines. Psychometrika, 1981, 46, 171–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yellot, J. I. Correction for fast guessing and the speed-accuracy trade-off in choice reaction time. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1971, 8, 159–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, F. W. Nonmetric scaling of line length using latencies, similarity, and same-different judgments. Perception & Psychophysics, 1970, 8, 363–369.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, F. W., de Leeuw, J., & Takane, Y. Quantifying qualitative data. In Lantermann, E. D., and Feger, H. (Eds.), Similarity and choice, Vienna: Hans Huber, 1980.Google Scholar
Zinnes, J. L., & Wolff, R. P. Single and multidimensional same-different judgments. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1977, 16, 30–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar