The labeled dissimilarity scale: A metric of perceptual dissimilarity

9Citations
Citations of this article
20Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Fundamental to the concept of psychological distance is the idea that confusability allows discovery of the perceptual relationships between objects, which provides understanding of the underlying principles that govern the functioning of a system. Thus, judgments of dissimilarity (conceptually proportional to the inverse of confusability) may provide insight into the elusive underlying quality-coding mechanisms in that sensory system. In the present experiments, a labeled dissimilarity scale (LDS) that reflects the magnitude of odorant dissimilarity was developed in a fashion similar to that reported by Green (Green, Shaffer, & Gilmore, 1993). This scale was produced by rating the perceptual intensity implied by adverbs describing different levels of dissimilarity, and then attaching those descriptors to appropriate locations on a numerical scale. The usefulness of the scale was demonstrated by its ability to produce visual color space with ratings of dissimilarity of Munsell color chips. The stability and reliability of the LDS was evaluated by comparing it with the traditional scaling technique of magnitude estimation (ME). It was found that the scales produced similar ratings of odorant dissimilarity and showed a similar susceptibility to the effects of contrast convergence. However, the coefficients of variation of dissimilarities rated with ME were much higher than those produced with the LDS. The subjects also dealt with the LDS without the anxiety that usually accompanies first-time users of ME. The LDS provided stable ratings of odorant dissimilarity and preserved the inferred ratio scale properties of ME.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Kurtz, D. B., White, T. L., & Hayes, M. (2000). The labeled dissimilarity scale: A metric of perceptual dissimilarity. Perception and Psychophysics, 62(1), 152–161. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212068

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free