|Title||A comparison of magnitude estimations and category judgments. Primary data.|
|Original Title||Vergleich von Größenschätzungen und kategorialen Urteilen. Primärdaten.|
|Citation||Petzold, P., & Haubensak, G. (2004). A comparison of magnitude estimations and category judgments. Primary data. [Translated Title] (Version 1) [Data and Documentation]. Trier: Center for Research Data in Psychology: PsychData of the Leibniz Institute for Psychology Information ZPID. https://doi.org/10.5160/psychdata.pdpr99ve20|
|Language of variable documentation||German|
|Responsible for Data Collection||Petzold, Peter|
|Data Collection Completion Date||1998|
|Study Description||These experiments assessed, for the magnitude estimations of squares, whether the range of the sequential dependencies of magnitude estimations and the categorical judgments vary. To this end, partial correlations between the assessment of a recently presented stimulus and the preceding stimuli and judgments were calculated. It was found that the range of magnitude estimations amounted to 1, while for categorical judgments this value was 2.
Furthermore, a relationship was found between the influence of preceding judgments in the sense of assimilation and the influence of preceding stimuli towards a contrast.
a) The difference in the range of sequential dependencies for the two types of judgments affects both the assimilation of judgments as well as the contrast with respect to the stimuli.
b) In the analysis of individual differences in the strength of sequential dependencies, a strong positive correlation was found between the extent of the influence of previous judgments and previous stimuli.
For categorical judgments, relationships between the sequence effects caused by stimulus-judgment events generated one and two trials prior to the current trial, were analyzed. Position effects resulted with respect to the relative position of the currently presented stimulus and the preceding stimuli one and two trials prior. If the squares presented one and two trials prior are both larger or both smaller than the current square, there is an interaction between them. However, if one of the previous two stimuli is smaller and the other is larger than the current stimulus, the interaction is eliminated.
The results obtained confirm a model of multiple standards, in which the stimuli are evaluated in categorical judgments with respect to a subjective area. The subjective area can be formed by the boundaries of the stimulus area (long-term standards) and/or memory representations of previous stimuli (short-term standards). In a trial, the two standards to which the stimulus to be judged is most similar are chosen from the set of available standards.
|Hypotheses||1. The range of sequence effects is larger than the size estimates for categorical judgments.
2. For categorical judgments, there are interactions between the influence of the events 1 and 2 trials back.
|Keyphrase||cognitive frames of reference, psychophysical judgments, category judgment & magnitude estimation, total of 40 subjects, 2 experimental studies, primary data|
|Funding||German Research Foundation|
|Research Method Description||Experiment Data|
|Classification of Data Collection||Experimental Design, Mixed Design, Laboratory Experiment|
|Research Instrument||The amount of the stimuli consisted of 12 squares which differed in length. The lengths ranged from 50-83 mm:
Square 1: 50mm
Square 2: 53 mm
Square 3: 56 mm
Square 4: 59 mm
Square 5: 62 mm
Square 6: 65 mm
Square 7: 68 mm
Square 8: 71 mm
Square 9: 74 mm
Square 10: 77 mm
Square 11: 80 mm
Square 12: 83 mm
40 students who had no experience with this kind of experiment took part. Subjects were randomly divided between the 2 conditions. 31 participants performed categorical judgments (Experiment 1) and 9 estimated size (Experiment 2). The wording of the instructions is sound in the program. In Experiment 1, subjects were asked to judge the size of the squares on a 5-point rating scale. They had to press the corresponding number key on the keyboard.
Square 6 was shown at the beginning Experiment 2 along with the number 10 as a modulus. Subjects were asked to assess the following squares relative to this standard. If a square appeared twice as large as the standard square, subjects were to chose the number 20. In this experiment, the selected number was typed into the computer's keyboard.
In both experiments, squares appeared 1 second after a response. No feedback was given. Sessions consisted of 3 parts, each lasting about 15 minutes with a 5-minute break. The squares were presented randomly. It was verified that the autocorrelation function of the stimuli up to 8 trials back adopted no significant value.
|Data Collection Method||Data collection in the presence of an experimenter
- Individual Administration
|Time Points||single measurement|
|Survey Time Period||1997 - 1998|
|Sample Size||40 individuals|
|Special Groups||College students with varying majors|
|Variables||Independent variables: Stimulus (length of the presented squares)
Independent variable: Instructions (Experiment 1 vs Experiment 2)
Dependent Variable: Judgment (assessing the size of the square)
Dependent Variable: Reaction time
Formal features: test subject ID number, session number, session part, number of trial run
|Data Status||Complete Data Set|
|Original Records||Individual processing records of the computer-based survey (person-related data files)|
|Transformation||During the computerized survey the subjects' reactions to the stimulus material were directly logged into a data file. A review was directly carried out on trials in which no answers were given. For each experiment a summary of the data matrix was generated for each trial participants. These data matrices (pdpr99ve20_pd1.txt and pdpr99ve20_pd2.txt) are provided.|
|Description||Primary data for the study (Experiment 1)|
|Data Content||18,601 trials (from 31 subjects), 6 variables|
|Variables||Subject ID (1), Encoding of session part (1), Trial run (1), Stimulus (1), Size judgment (1), Reaction time (1)|
|Description||Primary data for the study (Experiment 2)|
|Data Content||4,180 trials (from 9 subjects), 6 variables|
|Data Points||4,180*6=25,080 data points|
|Variables||Subject ID number (1), Encoding of the session (1), Encoding of session part (1), Trial run (1), Stimulus (1), Size judgment (1)|
|German codebook of primary data set pdpr99ve20_pd1.txt||pdpr99ve20_kb1.txt|
|German codebook of primary data set pdpr99ve20_pd2.txt||pdpr99ve20_kb2.txt|
|Control program for Experiment 1; source program||pdpr99ve20_sp1.txt|
|Control program for Experiment 2; source program||pdpr99ve20_sp2.txt|
|Source program from unit for the control programs pdpr99ve20_sp1.txt and pdpr99ve20_sp2.txt||pdpr99ve20_sp3.txt|
|Source program from unit for the control programs pdpr99ve20_sp1.txt and pdpr99ve20_sp2.txt||pdpr99ve20_sp4.txt|
|Publications Directly Related to the Dataset|
|Luce, R. D. & Green, D. M. (1978). Two tests of a neural attention hypothesis for auditory psychophysics. Perception and Psychophysics, 23, 363-371.|
|Ward, L. M. (1990). Critical bands and mixed frequency scaling: Sequential dependencies, equal-loudness contours, and power function exponents. Perception and Psychophysics, 47, 551-562.|