Feature lists and confusion matrices

69Citations
Citations of this article
38Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This report compares three feature list sets for capital letters, previously proposed by different investigators, on the ability of each to predict empirical confusion matrices. Toward this end, several variants of assumed information processes in recognition were also compared. The best model incorporated: (1) variable feature retrieval probabilities, (2) a goodness-of-match lower threshold below which guessing determines response, and (3) response bias on guessing trials. This model, when combined with one particular proposed feature list set, produced stress values of less than 9% in comparisons to empirical matrices for each of three different Ss. The feature retrieval probability vectors associated with these minimum-stress predictions were highly correlated ( {Mathematical expression}), suggesting considerable generality of process and feature sets between Ss. © 1973 Psychonomic Society, Inc.

References Powered by Scopus

Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex

9514Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Anatomy and physiology of vision in the frog (Rana pipiens)

482Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Theoretical analysis of an alphabetic confusion matrix

437Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Graph Design for the Eye and Mind

210Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Letter perception: from pixels to pandemonium

172Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Multidimensional letter similarity derived from recognition errors

123Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Geyer, L. H., & DeWald, C. G. (1973). Feature lists and confusion matrices. Perception & Psychophysics, 14(3), 471–482. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211185

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 18

60%

Professor / Associate Prof. 6

20%

Researcher 4

13%

Lecturer / Post doc 2

7%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Psychology 11

46%

Design 5

21%

Computer Science 5

21%

Linguistics 3

13%

Article Metrics

Tooltip
Mentions
References: 3

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free