When participants in psychophysical experiments are asked to estimate or identify stimuli which differ on a single physical dimension, their judgments are influenced by the local experimental context — the item presented and judgment made on the previous trial. It has been suggested that similar sequential effects occur in more naturalistic, real-world judgments. In three experiments we asked participants to judge the prices of a sequence of items. In Experiment 1, judgments were biased towards the previous response (assimilation) but away from the true value of the previous item (contrast), a pattern which matches that found in psychophysical research. In Experiments 2A and 2B, we manipulated the provision of feedback and the expertise of the participants, and found that feedback reduced the effect of the previous judgment and shifted the effect of the previous item's true price from contrast to assimilation. Finally, in all three experiments we found that judgments were biased towards the centre of the range, a phenomenon known as the “regression effect” in psychophysics. These results suggest that the most recently-presented item is a point of reference for the current judgment. The findings inform our understanding of the judgment process, constrain the explanations for local context effects put forward by psychophysicists, and carry practical importance for real-world situations in which contextual bias may degrade the accuracy of judgments.

The measurement of sensory intensity has had a long history, attracting the attention of investigators from many disciplines including physiology, psychology, physics, mathematics, philosophy, and even chemistry. While there has been a continuing doubt by some that sensation has the properties necessary for measurement, experiments designed to obtain estimates of sensory intensity have found that a general rule applies: Equal stimulus ratios produce equal sensory ratios. Theories concerning the basis for this simple psychophysical rule are discussed, with emphasis given to the physical correlate theory, which considers judgments of subjective magnitudes to be based upon estimates of physical dimensions that vary regularly with changes in degree of stimulation. For the most thoroughly investigated sensory scales, brightness and loudness, the physical correlate is considered to be distance. Our “tacit knowledge” of the sensory effects of changing distance plays an essential role in matching motor activities to environmental conditions and in ensuring accurate perceptual evaluations through brightness and loudness constancies. In psychophysical experiments, subjects apparently use this same tacit knowledge when required to estimate relative subjective magnitudes. The evidence related to the physical correlate theory is summarized, and it is concluded that, while under appropriate conditions we demonstrate considerable skill in evaluating environmental relationships, we are quite unable to estimate the neurophysiological nature or quantity of sensory response. A psychophysics devoted to studying conditions required for accuracy and conditions producing errors in the perception of environmental relationships would seem to be more valuable than one devoted to subjective magnitudes.

Most patients with neglect demonstrate a crossover effect on line bisection. Crossover refers to a pattern of performance in which long lines (>10 cm) are bisected ipsilateral to brain injury and short lines (<2 cm) are bisected contralateral to brain injury. Crossover bisections on short lines are of interest because they are not predicted by contemporary theories concerning neglect. However, we propose that the effect depends on two independent factors that normally influence bisection performance but are merely exaggerated in neglect—a tendency to overestimate the length of short lines and underestimate long lines and a tendency to orient attention preferentially in one spatial direction. We predicted that both patients with unilateral left and right hemisphere injury would demonstrate crossover on line bisection and that they would overestimate short lines and underestimate long lines upon direct visual inspection. Further, the 2 groups were predicted to demonstrate crossover in opposite directions owing to different lesion-induced biases in attentional orientation. Testing 5 patients with right hemisphere injury and 7 patients with left hemisphere injury confirmed each prediction. Additionally, errors in length estimation were exaggerated among patients with right hemisphere injury, most of whom had neglect. It is concluded that while crossover is accentuated in cases of neglect, it is not a consequence of neglect per se. As such, crossover bisections are not at odds with contemporary neglect theory. (JINS, 2002, 8, 107–114.)