Effects of stimulus order on discrimination processes in comparative and equality judgements: Data and models
Effects of stimulus order on discrimination processes in comparative and equality judgements: Data and models
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/17470218.2013.847968
复制
发表时间：
2014-01-01
影响因子：
1.7
通讯作者：
Ulrich, Rolf
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Dyjas, Oliver;Ulrich, Rolf
在典型的辨别实验中，参与者面临恒定的标准和可变的比较刺激，他们的任务是判断这两个刺激中哪一个更大（比较判断）。在这些实验中，辨别灵敏度取决于这些刺激的时间顺序（B型效应），并且当标准在比较之前而不是之后时，辨别灵敏度通常更高。在这里，我们概述了两个模型的刺激歧视可以占B型效应，即加权差异模型（或基本的感觉加权模型）和内部参考模型。对于这两个模型，预测的心理功能比较的判断，以及平等的判断，其中参与者表示他们是否认为这两个刺激是平等的或不平等的，推导和它示出的模型也预测了B型效果的平等判断。在实证部分，模型的预测进行了评估。为此，参与者进行了持续时间的歧视任务，比较判断和平等的判断。与模型的预测一致，观察到两种判断类型的B型效应。此外，一个时间顺序的错误，所示的心理功能的变化，和反应时间的差异，只观察到平等的判断。由于这两个模型都需要不同的额外预测，因此未来的研究似乎值得将这两个模型统一到一个概念框架中。
In typical discrimination experiments, participants are presented with a constant standard and a variable comparison stimulus and their task is to judge which of these two stimuli is larger (comparative judgement). In these experiments, discrimination sensitivity depends on the temporal order of these stimuli (Type B effect) and is usually higher when the standard precedes rather than follows the comparison. Here, we outline how two models of stimulus discrimination can account for the Type B effect, namely the weighted difference model (or basic Sensation Weighting model) and the Internal Reference Model. For both models, the predicted psychometric functions for comparative judgements as well as for equality judgements, in which participants indicate whether they perceived the two stimuli to be equal or not equal, are derived and it is shown that the models also predict a Type B effect for equality judgements. In the empirical part, the models' predictions are evaluated. To this end, participants performed a duration discrimination task with comparative judgements and with equality judgements. In line with the models' predictions, a Type B effect was observed for both judgement types. In addition, a time-order error, as indicated by shifts of the psychometric functions, and differences in response times were observed only for the equality judgement. Since both models entail distinct additional predictions, it seems worthwhile for future research to unite the two models into one conceptual framework.