Psychophysics:

The Fundamentals
Third Edition

Copyrighted Material
Copyrighted Material
 Psychophysics:
The Fundamentals
Third Edition

George A. Gescheider
Hamilton College

~ LAWRENCE ERLBAUM ASSOCIATES, PUBLISHERS

1997 Mahwah, New Jersey London

Copyrighted Material
Copyright © 1997 by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be repro-
duced in any form, by photostat, microform, retrieval
system, or any other means, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Publishers

10 Industrial Avenue
Mahwah, New Jersey 07430

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication-Data

Gescheider, George A.
Psychophysics : the fundamentals I George A. Gescheider.
-3rded.
p. em.
Includes bibliographic references and index.
ISBN 0-8058-2281-X (alk. paper)
1. Senses and sensation-Testing. 2. Psychophysics.
3. Psychophysiology-Methodology. I. Title.
QP43l.G473 1997
96-41791 152.1-dc20
CIP

Books published by Lawrence Erlbaum Associates are

printed on acid-free paper, and their bindings are chosen
for strength and durability.

Primed in the United States of America

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3

Copyrighted Material
This book is dedicated to my wife, Annie,
with whom I happily share my life,
to my daughters, Mary and Meg,
ofwhom I am very proud,
to my mother, Mary,
who has always made me feel special,
and to my good friend, Obie

Copyrighted Material
Copyrighted Material
Contents

Preface ix

1 Psychophysical Measurement of Thresholds: 1

Differential Sensitivity

2 Psychophysical Measurement of Thresholds: 16

Absolute Sensitivity

3 The Classical Psychophysical.Methods 45

4 Classical Psychophysical Theory 73

5 The Theory of Signal Detection 105

6 Further Considerations of TSD 125

7 Procedures of TSD 142

8 Some Applications of TSD 166

vii

Copyrighted Material
viii CONTENTS

9 The Measurement of Sensory Attributes 183

and Discrimination Scales

10 Partition Scales 207

11 Psychophysical Ratio Scaling 231

12 Evaluation of Ratio Scaling Methods 264

13 The Psychophysical Law 296

14 Some Fundamental Issues in Psychophysical Scaling 327

Appendix 371

Glossary 392

References 408

Author Index 425

Subject Index 431

Copyrighted Material
Preface

Psychophysics is the scientific study of the relation between stimulus and

sensation, and therefore the problems of psychophysics constitute some of the
most fundamental problems of modern psychology. For centuries thinkers have
recognized the importance of understanding sensation. In fact, experimental
psychology developed as an independent science largely because of the recog-
nition that the scientific study of sensation could yield insight into the workings
of the human mind.
Experimental psychology was established as an independent science when,
in Leipzig, 1879, Wilhelm Wundt founded the first laboratory for experimental
work exclusively directed toward understanding psychological processes. The
work of Wundt and other early experimental psychologists evolved from the
British empiricist and associationist schools of philosophy, which had firmly
established the idea of the senses as the key to human understanding. This idea
was reinforced by advances in sensory physiology, which suggested that the
problem might yield to scientific investigation.
But perhaps the single most important historical antecedent of experimental
psychology was psychophysics. Thus, for some psychologists the most signifi-
cant date in psychology is not 1879, the founding date of Wundt's laboratory,
but 1860, the date of the publication of Fechner's Elements of Psychophysics.
Fechner's work, in providing methods and theory for the measurement of
sensation, gave psychology basic tools for the study of mind.
Today psychophysics remains a central part of experimental psychology.
Important recent changes in psychophysics are the development of the theory
of signal detection and the refinements of methods for directly scaling sensory
magnitude. These two advances have greatly broadened the applicability of
psychophysics to areas far beyond the original problems of measuring sensory
thresholds. Modern psychophysics can be credited with contributions to the
solution of problems in such diverse realms as sensory processes, memory,
learning, social behavior, and esthetics.
ix

Copyrighted Material
X PREFACE

This book describes the methods, theories, and applications of classical and
modern psychophysics. It was written for advanced undergraduate students
with some background in statistics; graduate students may also find it useful
for obtaining an overview of the field. I hope Psychophysics: The Fundamentals
will be useful for courses in perception, general experimental psychology, and
quantitative methods.
Twelve years have passed since the publication of the second edition of this
book. In this third edition, I have included many of the methodological and
theoretical contributions made in the field during this time period. I have also
expanded on some of the topics found in the first and second editions. The
major additions found in this book are descriptions of adaptive procedures for
measuring thresholds, context effects in scaling, theory of quantal fluctuations,
multidimensional scaling, nonmetric . scaling of sensory differences, and the
relationship between the size of the DL and the slope of the sensation magni-
tude function. New methods have also been included for measuring the ob-
server's sensitivity and criterion and the discussion of category scaling has been
expanded to include the range frequency model and verbally labeled categories.
Methods used to control the observer's nonlinear use of numbers in magnitude
estimation such as line-length scaling, magnitude matching, master scaling and
category-ratio scaling are described. Finally, a glossary of terms is added.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I wish to acknowledge the special efforts of Sandy Bolanowski, Gene Galanter,
Neil Macmillan, Larry Marks, Joe Sturr, and John Swets in providing me with
their constructive criticism and helpful suggestions after reading various ver-
sions and sections of the manuscript. I would also like to thank my students
for their support and helpful suggestions, Nancy Wichmann for her typing and
help in putting the final manuscript together, Chris Ingersoll for her excellent
artwork, and Marcy Pruiksma, Book Production Editor, for coordinating dif-
ferent facets of this project.
-George A. Gescheider

Copyrighted Material
 1
Psychophysical Measurement of
Thresholds: Differential Sensitivity

Prior to a century ago the approach to psychological problems consisted

primarily of philosophical speculation. The transition of psychology from
a philosophical to a scientific discipline was greatly facilitated when the
German physicist G. T. Fechner introduced techniques for measuring
mental events (1860). The attempt to measure sensations through the use
of Fechner's procedures was termed psychophysics and constituted the
major research activity of early experimental psychologists. Since this time
psychophysics has consisted primarily of investigating the relationships
between sensations (IJI) in the psychological domain and stimuli(<!>) in the
physical domain.
. Central to psychophysics is the concept of a sensory threshold. The
philosopher Herbart (1824) had conceived of the idea of a threshold by
assuming that mental events had to be stronger than some critical amount
in order to be consciously experienced. Although measurement is not a part
of this description of the threshold, scientists eventually were able to see
the implication of such a concept for psychological measurement. In the
early nineteenth century, for example, German scientists such as E. H.
Weber and G. T. Fechner were interested in the measurement of the
sensitivity limits of the human sense organs. Using measurement tech-
niques of physics and well-trained human observers, they were able to
specify the weakest detectable sensations in terms of the stimulus energy
necessary to produce them. The absolute threshold or stimulus threshold (RL
for the German Reiz Limen) was defined as the smallest amount of stimulus
energy necessary to produce a sensation. Since an organism's sensitivity to
external stimuli tends to fluctuate somewhat from moment to moment,

Copyrighted Material
2 CHAPTER 1

several measurements of the threshold value of the stimulus are averaged

to arrive at an accurate estimation of the absolute threshold. When a
stimulus above absolute threshold is applied to the sense organ, the
intensity of this stimulus must be increased or decreased by some critical
amount before a person is able to report any change in sensation. The
difference threshold (DL for the German Differenz Limen) was defined as the
amount of change in a stimulus(~$) required to produce a just noticeable
difference Gnd) in the sensation. If the intensity of the stimulus is 10 units,
and the stimulus must be increased to 12 units to produce a just noticeable
increment in the sensation, then the difference threshold would be 2 units.
Sensation intensity is only one of several ways in which sensations can
differ, and DL' shave also been measured for other dimensions of sensation.
It is generally agreed that sensations can differ on at least four basic
dimensions-intensity, quality, extension, and duration. The dimension of
quality refers to the fact that sensations may be different in kind. The
different sensory modalities have unique kinds of sensations; for example,
seeing . is an entirely different kind of experience than hearing. Within
sensory modalities, sensations also vary in quality. A sound becomes
higher or lower in pitch as the vibration frequency of the stimulus is
changed. Variations of the wavelength oflight are accompanied by changes
in hue. A cutaneous sensation may be felt as pain, warmth, cold, or simply
a pressure. If the underlying stimulus dimensions for a sensation are
known, the difference thresholds can be measured to find the changes in
these dimensions necessary to produce just noticeable changes in the
sensation. For example, in auditory pitch discrimination the DL for changes
in frequency has been measured. In color discrimination the DL for the
perception of changes in the wavelength of light has been measured. Since
sensations can vary along the dimension of extension, the DL can be
measured for variation in sp!ltial aspects of physical stimuli, such as size,
location, and separation. And, finally, since sensations last for varying
periods of time, the DL for stimulus duration has been of interest to
psychophysicists.
Much work in psychophysit:s has consisted of investigating how the
absolute and difference thresholds change as some aspect of the stimulus
(wavelength, frequency, adaptation time, intensity level, etc.) is system-
atically varied. The resulting relations are called stimulus critical value
functions, since they describe how the threshold (critical stimulus value)
changes as a function of other aspects of the stimulus.

DIFFERENTIAL SENSITIVITY

One of the first stimulus critical value functions to be investigated was

the relation between the difference threshold for intensity and the intensity
level of a stimulus. If, for example, the difference threshold is 2 units

Copyrighted Material
DIFFERENTIAL SENSITIVITY 3

when the intensity level()~ t~W stimulusjs JO ,units, what would the
difference threshold be for mtensity when the stimulus is set at 20, 30,
40, or 50 units? Working mainly with the discrimination of lifted weights,
the German physiologist E. H. Weber (1834) discovered that two relatively
heavy weights must differ by a greater amount than two relatively light
weights for one weight to be perceived as heavier than the other; that is,
heavier weights are harder to discriminate and are associated with larger
DL's. More precisely, the size of the difference threshold was a linear
function of stimulus intensity. Thus, increases in the intensity of the
stimulus that were just noticeably different to the observer were always
a constant fraction of the stimulus intensity. For weights placed on the
skin, this fraction is about %o.
The size of Weber's fraction is quite different, however, for other
stimulus conditions and sense modalities. What is significant is that
whether the stimulus is ·applied to the eye, ear, skin, nose, tongue, or
other sense organs, there appears to be a lawful relationship between the
size of the difference threshold and the stimulus intensity level. This
relationship is known as Weber's law: the change in stimulus intensity that
can just be discriminated (A<j>) is a constant fraction (c) of the starting
intensity of the stimulus (<j>):

A<j> = c<j> or Al(l/1(1 =c. (1.1)

As seen graphically in our hypothetical situation, the size of the difference

threshold is one-fifth of the starting stimulus intensity at all intensity
levels (Fig. 1.1). If Weber's law is valid, we would expect, Al(l/1(1 to be
constant as intensity level is varied (AI(l I q, =c). This prediction is typically
confirmed for a fairly wide range of stimulus intensities. However, the
Weber fraction, A$/$, tends to increase greatly at extremely low intensi-
ties. In Figure 1.2 the relationship between the Weber fraction and inten-
sity is shown for an experiment on lifted weights (Engen, 1971). The
observer was required to successively lift weights with one hand, and the
value of A$ was determined for six different values of $. The results for
each of two observers indicate that Aq, I q, is nearly constant for all but the
lightest weights.
Technically, the Weber fraction is an extremely useful calculation
providing an index of sensory discrimination which can be compared
across different conditions and different modalities. It is impossible, for
example, to compare meaningfully the Al(l for vision in luminosity units
with the Al(l for audition in sound pressure units, but the relative
sensitivities for the two modalities can be gauged through a comparison
of Weber fractions. Some of the results from two classic studies on
intensity discrimination are presented in Figures 1.3 and 1.4. In the study

Copyrighted Material
 10

9
8
7
6
5
4

3
2

0 10 20 30 40 50
Stimulus intensity ($)
FIG. 1.1. The relationship between A$ and cp accordhtg to Weber's law.

0.07 r-:-r--r-----.------.-------....----.

e DSO
o owe

c:

-
0
+=
u
~ •
...
Ql
..Q

~ 0.02

0.01

150 250 600

Weight of standard (g)
FIG. 1.2. The Weber fraction for lifted weights. The value of Acp/cp for each
of two observers was nearly constant over the stimulus range, except for
the lowest stimulus values. (From Engen, 1971.)

Copyrighted Material
 0.7

0 .6

0.5

0.4
<JI_J
0 .3

0.2

0.1

q5 5
Log L (ml)

FIG. 1.3. Relation between Llcjl/cjl and log luminance as shown by Konig
(open circles) and Brodhun (solid circles). (From Konig & Brodhun, 1889;
after Hecht, 1934, Fig. 27, p. 769.)

1.1
1.0
.9
.8
.7
.6
~
<I
.5
.4
.3
.2
.1
0
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Decibels above threshold

FIG. 1.4. Relation between Llcjl/cjl and the intensity of auditory noise
expressed as decibels above the absolute threshold. (From Miller, 1947.)

Copyrighted Material
6 CHAPTER 1

by Konig and Brodhun (1889), the observer viewed a split field in which
the two sides could be made to differ in intensity by various amounts.
The difference in intensity necessary for discrimination of a brightness
difference between the two sides was determined for nearly the full range
of visual intensities. Figure 1.3 contains data from separate experiments
by Konig and Brodhun on the discrimination of intensity differences in
white light. At low intensities, Lilj>/lj> decreased as intensity increased, but
then became approximately constant for the higher intensity values.
In a similar study, Miller (1947) determined the intensity difference in
a burst of white noise necessary for discrimination at various intensity
levels. We see again from the results presented in Figure 1.4 that Lllj>/lj>
first decreased as a function of lj>, and then becomes approximately con-
stant. A comparison of the lowest Weber fractions in Figure 1.3 and Figure
1.4 reveals that brightness discrimination is somewhat keener than loud-
ness discrimination.
A modification of Weber's law more closely corresponding to empirical
data states

Llcj> (1.2)
- .-=cor Llcj>=c(cj>+a),
cj>+a
where a is a constant that usually has a fairly small value. The empirical
values of Llcj>/(lj> + a) obtained in a discrimination experiment are often
approximately the same for all values of cj> when the correct value of a
has been chosen. Since the original version of Weber's law does not
correspond to the data for intensity values near absolute threshold, it
would seem that the constant a, which brings Weber's law into line with
the data, must be related to the operation of sensory systems near thresh-
old. The exact significance of a has not been determined, but it may
represent the amount of sensory noise that exists when the value of cj> is
zero. The actual stimulus intensity which effectively determines Llcj> may
not be lj>, but rather lj> plus the sontinuously fluctuating background noise
level of the nervous system. Since sensory noise as spontaneous activity
in the nervous system exists as a background to stimulation, its level may
greatly influence the value qf Acj> for very low intensity values. When the
level of sensory noise is taken into account, Weber's law may be essentially
correct.
The hypothetical results shown in Figure 1.5 illustrate the effects of
employing an additive constant a when describing how Lllj> changes as cj>
increases. In the top graph Licj>/cj> is approximately constant over most of
the range of 4> values with the exception of the substantial deviation at
low values of lj>. When a constant a is added to all values of cj> and Lilj> I (cj>
+ a) is plotted as a function cj> +a, the results are described by Weber's
law over the entire range of lj> .v alues.

Copyrighted Material
DIFFERENTIAL SENSITIVITY 7

~
~ .1
<I

-+
co
~
- .1 o--o--~o~----40J----40J----40r----o
~
<I
o~----~----~----~----~----~--~
0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Stimulus intensity (0)

' '

FIG. 1.5. Hypothetical results in which 6$/~ is plotted as a function of

$(top) and 6$/($ +a) is plotted as a function of$ (bottom).

One advantage of the previous interpretation of the constant a is that

the concept of sensory noise provides a unifying principle for under-
standing absolute and difference thresholds. The absolute threshold can
be regarded as the value of <!> needed to increase the neural activity level
above the sensory noise level by some critical amount. The difference
threshold can be thought of as the change in<!> needed to produce a critical
difference in neural activity level associated with two intensities of stimu-
lation. Thus, both the absolute threshold and the difference threshold
involve the discrimination of differences in levels of neural activity. The
importance of the concept of sensory noise will become increasingly
apparent in our subsequent discussions of psychophysical theory.

Copyrighted Material
8 CHAPTER 1

Noise in a psychophysical experiment may originate froin outside as

well as from inside the observer. One source of external noise is uncon-
trolled fluctuations in the stimulus. Attempts to determine the difference
threshold for the sense of smell have illustrated the large effects that such
external noise can have on psychophysical experiments. For many years
the highest reported values of Alj> were for the sense of smell. The intensity
of an odorant typically had to be changed by 25% to 35% for the perceived
intensity of the smell to change (e.g., Gamble, 1898). A high Weber fraction
for smell is surprising, since absolute thresholds for detecting odorants
are among the lowest measured for any sensory modality. Cain (1977)
has argued that the high difference thresholds for the sense of smell are
an artifact of uncontrolled fluctuations in the concentrations of the olfac-
tory stimulus. In olfactory psychophysics, substances are placed in an
apparatus designed to deliver odorants to the observer's nose. The change
in concentration of these substances required to produce a just noticeable
difference in smell is the difference threshold. This procedure would be
acceptable only if the changes in concentration of an odorant at the nose
of the observer were entirely determined by changes in concentrations of
the substance in the apparatus. Cain, however, demonstrated that, although
the concentration of the substance in the apparatus may be constant, the
concentration at the nose of the observer will vary greatly from one
presentation to the next. When this "noise" at the nose was taken into
account, Weber fractions for smell were found to be as low as 4%, which
is about one-tenth the value commonly accepted. Cain's research illus-
trates the importance of precise stimulus control in psychophysics. Meas-
urement of the stimulus should always be made as close to the sensory
receptors as possible. Cain's analysis of the olfactory stimulus teaches us
the important lesson that failure to control the stimulus at the receptors
can lead investigators to make false conclusions about the nature of a
sensory system.
Although Weber's law, at all but the lowest stimulus values, provides
an excellent description of most intensity discrimination data, there are
notable exceptions that have been repeatedly observed for the auditory
discrimination of pure tones and tactile discrimination of vibration. For
example, Riesz (1928) determined the intensity increment in an auditory
tone necessary for discrimination at various intensity levels and at various
frequencies. Because the frequency of 4000 Hz yielded the lowest values
of Alj>, only the data for this frequency are presented in Figure 1.6. We
can see that the value of AIJ>N first decreases rapidly as a function of lj>,
but, instead of becoming constant as it did with white noise, Alj>/lj> con-
tinues to decrease gradually :with further increases in lj>. This gradual
decrease in Alj>/ lj> that can be observed even at the highest intenstiy levels,
because it is so slight, has become known as the "near miss" to Weber's

Copyrighted Material
DIFFERENTIAL SENSITIVITY 9

.I

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Decibels above threshold

FIG. 1.6. Relation between ~1/> /lj> and the intensity of a 4000-Hz tone. The
intensity of the tone is expressed in decibels above absolute threshold.
(From Riesz, 1928.)

law (McGill & Goldberg, 1968a, b). As yet, there are no widely agreed on
explanations for this phenomenon. The near miss to Weber's law has also
been observed for vibratory stimulation of the palm near the base of the
thumb, and the results for 250Hz sinusoidal stimulation and vibratory
noise are seen in Figure 1.7. It is curious that the near miss has been found
when random noise stimulation is presented to the skin as well as when
sinusoidal stimuli are applied (Gescheider, Bolanowski, Verrillo, Arpajian,
& Ryan, 1990). Recall that, in hearing, Weber's law describes intensity
discrimination of white noise and the near miss is observed only for
sinusoidal stimulation of pure tones. Perhaps the explanation for the near

.4
.3 •••
oooi • •
~<!.2 0 0
e
o 250 Hz sinusoid i
.1 • Noise

00 10 20 30 40
Decibels above threshold
FIG. 1.7. Relation between ~lj>/ lj> and the intensity of a vibrotactile stimulus
expressed as decibels above the absolute threshold. (From Gescheider,
BoJanowski, Verrillo, Arpajian, & Ryan, 1990.)

Copyrighted Material
10 CHAPTER 1

miss to Weber's law will eventually come from a careful comparison of

the conditions under which the phenomenon is observed in the auditory
and tactile modalities.

FECHNER'S PSYCHOPHYSICS

It was from Weber's work on the DL that Fechner extracted the theoretical
implication which led to his formulation of the discipline called psycho-
physics. Fechner's investigations, originating from an attempt to establish
a precise relationship between the physical and mental, were published
in 1860 as Elements of Psychophysics. In this work, Fechner was concerned
with the problem of measuring private experience. For example, if a room
appeared to become brighter, a sound louder, or an injury more painful,
Fechner wanted to find a way to give the brightness, loudness, or pain-
fulness a number that represented the experience. As a result of his
background in physics and mathematics, he approaches these problems
in a quite different manner than those who preceded him. In the last 35
years of his life, Fechner's work focused on the ~dea that mind and matter
are equal and are merely two alternative ways of regarding the universe.
His psychophysics was a small, but highly significant, part of this concept.
Seeking proof for his ideas about the equivalence of mind and matter,
Fechner tried through measurement and quantification to derive a mathe-
matical equation to describe the relationship between physical events and
conscious experience. Fechner's first insights into the problem came when
he proposed that an arithmetic series of mental intensities might corre-
spond to a geometric series of physical energies. He later realized this
principle was exactly what Weber's results seemed to imply: that as the
stimulus intensity increases, it takes greater and greater changes in inten-
sity to change the sensation magnitude by some constant amount. Fechner
proposed that sensation magnitude could be quantified indirectly by
relating the values of 11<1> on the physieal scale to the corresponding values
of the just noticeable difference Gnd) in sensation on the psychological
scale. His central assumption was that all jnd's were equal psychological
increments in sensation magnitude, regardless of the size of 11$. Fechner's
proposed relationship between the size of 11$ in physical units (from
Weber's law) and the size of the jnd in psychological units is illustrated
in Figure 1.8. It is very important to understand that two independent
dimensions exist in this relationship-the stimulus dimension, $, and the
sensation dimension, 'I'· Fechner was saying that, regardless of its size in
physical units, the jnd is a standard unit of sensation magnitude because
a
it is the smallest detectable increment ifl sensation and is therefore
always psychologically the same size. As is the case with any scale of

Copyrighted Material
DIFFERENTIAL SENSITIVITY 11

Sensation magnitude (o/J

0123456789
I I I \ \ ' '-, ' ,
I l l \ ' '' '' '' ,
I I I \ \
I ll''''
I I I \ \ ' ' '',
I II '\ '\ ' '' '"- . . '...._
l \ \ \ \ ', ', .......
I

I I \ \ ' ', ',

0 10 50
Stimulus intensity <<P)
FIG. 1.8. Relation between Weber's law and Fechner's law. Stimulus values
that are marked off according to Weber's law were assumed by Fechner
to result in equal steps in sensation magnitude.

measurement, once a basic unit is established, one has only to count up

units in order to specify the amount of a measured property. Thus, Fechner
developed a scale of sensation magnitude by counting jnd's, starting at
absolute threshold. The intensity in physical units of a stimulus at absolute
threshold, which represents the transition between sensation and no sen-
sation, was assumed to correspond to the zero point on the psychological
scale of sensation magnitude. A sensation produced by a stimulus 20 jnd's
above absolute threshold should therefore have a psychological magni-
tude twice as great as a sensation produced by a stimulus that is only 10
jnd's above absolute threshold.
In order to determine empirically the number of jnd's above absolute
threshold corresponding to values of the physical stimulus, one would have
to undertake the arduous task of starting at absolute threshold and meas-
uring successive values of ~<P along the physical continuum. The first ~<P
above the absolute threshold would be measured, and the stimulus inten-
sity value for one jnd above absolute threshoid would be recorded and used
as the starting stimulus for the measurement of the next ~<P- The measure-
ment of the second ~<P would provide a stimulus value two jnd's above
the absolute threshold; this value would then be recorded and used as the
starting stimulus for the measurement of the third .:l<P, and so on. Once the
physical intensity values had been determined for successive jnd's over
the range of energies to which the sensory system responds, the relation-
ship between stimuli in physical units (!P) and sensation magnitude in
psychological units (number of jnd's above absolute threshold) could be
specified in terms of a graph or an equation.
Rather than employing the laborious procedure of experimentally de-
termining successive .:l<P values along the entire physical dimension, Fech-
ner, by assuming the validity of Weber's law, was able to calculate the
number of jnd's above absolute threshold for specific values of the stimu-

Copyrighted Material
12 CHAPTER 1

Ius. For example, if Acj>/cj> is lfs, and the absolute threshold is 10, then the
stimulus value corresponding to the first jnd would be 10 x lfs + 10 = 12.
The stimulus value corresponding to the second jnd is obtained by the
same procedure (12 x lfs + 12 =14.4). This method of successive calculation
provides the basis for Table 1.1. This table contains stimulus intensity
values and the corresponding number of psychological units (number of
jnd's). The results of this procedure are presented graphically in Figure
1.9. If the number of jnd's above absolute threshold is a valid measure
of sensation magnitude, then it is apparent from Figure 1.9 that equal
increments in sensation correspond to larger and larger increases in stimu-
lus intensity as stimulus intensity increases. In fact, if sensation magnitude
is plotted against the logarithm of stimulus intensity, the relationship is
linear (Fig. 1.10). A considerable amount of labor would be saved if the
equation were known for this logarithmic relationship. The sensation
magnitude produced by some specific stimulus intensity could then be
quickly calculated. Fechner derived a general formula from Weber's law
by integration over a series of cj> values; it has become known as Fechner's
law:

'I'= k log cj> . (1.3)

In the formula, 'I' is the sensation magnitude, cj> is the intensity of the
stimulus in units above absolute threshold, and k is a constant multiplier, the
value of which depends upon the particular sensory dimension and modality.
In evaluating Fechner's law, we must consider the two main assump-
tions which he had to make to derive the equation. First, Fechner's law

TABLE 1.1
Number of jnd's Above Threshold
Corresponding to Stimulus Intensity Values

Log
Number Stimulus stimulus
of jnd's intensity intensity

0 10.00 1.000
1 12.00 1.079
2 14.40 1.158
3 17.28 1.238
4 20.79 1.316
5 24.89 1.396
6 29.86 1.476
7 35.83 1.554
8 43.00 1.633
9 51.60 1.713

Copyrighted Material
 9
'1::1 8
0
r.

-
: 7
...
r.
6
Cll
>
_g 5
Cl

""{; 4
c
'0 3
...
~ 2
E
z
~

Stimulus intensity
FIG. 1.9. Number of jnd's above threshold plotted against stimulus
intensity. The points are from Table 1.1, which contains the calculated
values based on the assumption that the Weber fraction is 1/s and the
absolute threshold is 10 units.

'1::1 9
0
r.
...
II>
8
-
Q)
r.
7
Cll
>
0
.0
6
Cl
5
II>
'1::1
c
...... 4
,._
0 3
...
Q) 2
.0
E
z
~

0
1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4 1.5 1.6 1.7 1.8
Loo stimulus intensity
FIG. 1.10. Number of jnd's above threshold plotted against the logarithm
of stimulus intensity. The calculated values are in Table 1.1.

13

Copyrighted Material
14 CHAPTER 1

is valid only to the extent that Weber's law is correct, and we have already
seen that the Weber fraction is not a constant at the low end of the stimulus
range. Thus, the generality of the law is necessarily restricted to ranges
of stimulus intensity over which A$/$= c. In the second place, Fechner's
law rests upon the assumption that the jnd is an equal increment in
sensation at all levels of stimulus intensity. This assumption is basic to
the entire concept of scaling sensations by using the jnd as the unit
measurement. However, experimental tests have shown that jnd's along
the intensive dimension are psychologically unequal (S. S. Stevens, 1936).
A sound 20 jnd's above absolute threshold is judged to be much more
than twice as loud as a sound 10 jnd's above absolute threshold.
In another experiment, Durup and Pieron (1933) had observers adjust
the intensities of blue and red lights so that they appeared equal in
brightness. Contrary to Fechner's notion that all jnd's are subjectively
equal, the two stimuli no longer appeared to have the same brightness
when their intensities were increased by the same number of jnd's. If jnd's
are subjectively equal, then two stimuli that appear equal in subjective
magnitude should continue to appear so when their intensities are both
increased by the same number of DL steps. For example, increasing the
intensity of both stimuli by 10 DL steps should increase the sensation
magnitude of both stimuli by 10 subjectively equal jnd's. According to
Fechnerian thinking, the sensation magnitudes of both stimuli, in this
situation, have been raised by the same amount and therefore the two
stimuli should still appear subjectively equal. Because this prediction was
not confirmed, it follows that jnd's are not subjectively equal and therefore
cannot be used as the basic unit for measurement of sensation magnitude.
For more than 100 years, Fechner's equation was widely accepted in
psychology and, to some extent, in other fields, such as physiology and
engineering. Today, it is not considered an accurate statement of the
relationship between stimulus intensity and sensation magnitude. How-
ever, the fact that experimental results have not led to the verification of
Fechner's law does not detract from the overall significance of his work.
The importance of his accomplishments lies in the direction he took while
trying to deal with problems of mental events. The concept of measure-
ment, a primary goal of science, became a part of psychological investi-
gation through Fechner's work.

PROBLEMS

1.1. Using Weber's formula A$= ccp calculate A$ for cp values of 10, 15,
20, 25, and 30, when cis .1 and when it is .2. On the same graph
plot A$ as a function of cp for the two values of c. On another graph
plot A$/$ as a function of cp for the two values of c.

Copyrighted Material
DIFFERENTIAL SENSITIVITY 15

1.2. If, in an experiment, you found A<jl to be 2.4 when <P was 10.0, and
you assumed the vaiidity of Weber's iaw, A<jl = c<jl, what values of
A<jl would you expect if you repeated the experiment for <1> values
of 3.0, 5.0, 20.0, and 30.0? Plot the expected values of A<jl as a
function of <jl.
1.3. Experimentally determined values of A<!> can seldom be accurately
predicted from the equation A<!> = c4>. For example, the values of
A<!> presented below could represent the typical results of a dis-
crimination experiment.

<I> A<!>
3.0 1.0
5.0 1.4
10.0 2.4
20.0 4.4
30.0 6.4

On the graph used for problem 1.2, plot these experimentally

determined values of A<!> and compare them to those predicted
from the Weber equation, A<!>= c<1>
1.4. For the experimentally determined values of A<jl given in problem
1.3, calculate the Weber fraction, A<l>/<1>, and plot it as a function
of <jl. How does this function deviate from that expected from the
Weber equation A<!>/ <I>= c?
1.5. Test the hypothesis that the equation A<l>/{<1> + a) = c is a better
description of the hypothetical data of problem 1.3 than the Weber
equation A<l>/<1> = c. Assume a value of 2.0 for a and calculate c
from A<!>/(<1>+ a)= c for each value of <I>· Plot A<l>/(<1> +a) as a function
of <I>·
1.6. In deriving his law, Fechner assumed Weber's equation, A<!>= c<jl
was correct. Assuming c to be .1, determine the values of <1> corre-
sponding to the first 10 jnd's above an absolute threshold of 5.0.
Using the logic of Fechner, make a graph of sensation magnitude,
'If, as a function of stimulus intensity, <I>· Repeat the procedure for
c = .2.
1.7. Convert the <1> values of problem 1.6 to logarithms and plot sen-
sation magnitude as a function of log <I>· Write equations for the
functions obtained for the two values of c in the Weber equation.
1.8. Upon what two basic assumptions is Fechner's law based? Evalu-
ate the validity of these assumptions.

Copyrighted Material
References
Abel, E. L. Marijuana and memory: Acquisition or retrieval? Science, 1971, 173, 1038–1040.
Adams, C. , Hall, D. , Pennypacker, H. , Goldstein, G. , Hench, L. , Madden, M. , Stein, G. ,
& Catania, A. Lump detection in simulated human breasts. Perception and Psychophysics,
1976, 20, 163–167.
Adrian, E. D. , & Matthews, R. The action of light on the eye: I. The discharge of impulses in
the optic nerve and its relation to the electric changes in the retina. Journal of Physiology,
1927, 63, 378–414.
Algom, D. Memory psychophysics: An examination of its perceptual and cognitive
prospects. In D. Algom (Ed.), Psychophysical Approaches to Cognition. Amsterdam:
Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., 1992.
Algom, D. , & Cohen-Raz, L. Visual velocity input-output functions: The integration of
distance and duration onto subjective velocity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human
Perception & Performance, 1984, 10, 486–501.
Algom, D. , & Lubel, S. Psychophysics in the field: Perception and memory for labor pain.
Perception & Psychophysics, 1994, 55, 133–141.
Algom, D. , & Marks, L. E. Individual differences in loudness processing and loudness
scales. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1984, 113, 571–593.
Algom, D. , & Marks, L. E. Range and regression, loudness scales, and loudness
processing: Toward a context bound psychophysics. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Human Perception & Performance, 1990, 16, 706–727.
Algom, D. , Raphaeli, N. , & Cohen-Raz, L. Integration of noxious stimulation across
separate somatosensory communication systems: A functional theory of pain. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 1986, 12, 92–102.
Algom, D. , Wolf, Y. , & Bergman, B. Integration of stimulus dimensions in perception and
memory: Composition rules and psychophysical relations. Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 1985, 114, 451–471.
Anderson, N. H. Application of an additive model to impression formation. Science, 1962,
138, 817–818.
Anderson, N. H. Functional measurement and psychophysical judgment. Psychological
Review, 1970, 77, 153–170.
Anderson, N. H. Algebraic models of perception. In E. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman
(Eds.), Handbook of Perception (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press, 1974.
Anderson, N. H. Integration theory, functional measurement, and the psychological law. In
H. G. Geisslerl & Y. M. Zabrodin (Eds.), Advances in Psychophysics, pp. 93–130. Berlin:
VEB Deutscher Verlag, 1976.
Anderson, N. H. Note on functional measurement and data analysis. Perception and
Psychophysics, 1977, 21, 201–215.
Anderson, N. H. Information integration theory in developmental psychology. In F. Wilkening
, J. Becker , & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Information integration by children. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1980.
Anderson, N. H. foundation of Information Integration Theory. New York: Academic, 1981.
Anderson, N. H. Cognitive algebra and social psychophysics. In B. Wegener (Ed.), Social
attitudes and psychophysical measurements. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
1982.
Anderson, N. H. Integration psychophysics and cognition. In D. Algom (Ed.), Psychophysical
Approaches to Cognition, pp. 13–113. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1992.
Attneave,. F. Dimensions of similarity. American Journal of Psychology, 1950, 63, 516–556.
Attneave, F. Perception and related areas. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A Study of a
Science (Vol. 4), pp. 619–659. New York: McGraw Hill, 1962.
Banks, W. P. Signal detection theory and human memory. Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 74,
81–99.
Bartoshuk, L. M. , Rifkin, B. , Marks, L. E. , & Bars, P. Taste and aging. Journal of
Gerontology, 1986, 44, 51–57.
Beals, R. , Krantz, D. H. , & Tversky, A. Foundation of multidimensional scaling.
Psychological Review, 1968, 75, 127–142.
Békésy, G. Über das Fechner’sche Gesetz und seine Bedeutung für die Theorie der
akustischen Beobachtungsfehler und die Theorie des Hörens. Annalen der Physik, 1930, 7,
329–359.
Békésy, G. A new audiometer. Acta Oto- laryngology, 1947, 35, 411–422.
Berglund, B. , Berglund, U. , Engen, T. , & Ekman, G. Individual psychophysical functions for
twenty-eight odorants. Perception and Psychophysics, 1971, 9, 379–384.
Berglund, M. B. Quality assurance in environmental psychophysics. In S. J. Bolanowski & G.
A. Gescheider (Eds.), Ratio Scaling of Psychological Magnitude: In Honor of the Memory of
S. S. Stevens, pp. 140–162. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1991.
Bernoulli, D. Specimen theoriae novae de mensura sortis. Commentarii Academiae
Scientiarum Imperiales Petropolitanae, 1738, 5, 175–192. (Translated by L. Sommer in
Econometrica, 1954, 22, 23–36.)
Birnbaum, M. H. Controversies in psychophysical measurement. In B. Wegener (Ed.), Social
Attitudes and Psychophysical Measurement, pp. 401–485. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 1982.
Blackwell, H. R. Psychophysical thresholds: Experimental studies of methods of
measurement. Bulletin of the Engineering Research Institute, University of Michigan, No. 36,
1953.
Blough, D. S. A method for obtaining psychophysical thresholds from the pigeon. Journal of
the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1958, 1, 31–43.
Bolanowski, S. J., Jr. Contourless stimuli produce binocular brightness summation. Vision
Research, 1987, 27, 1943–1951.
Bolanowski, S. J. , Gescheider, G. A. , & Sutton, S. V. W. Relationship between oral pain
and ethanol concentration in mouthrinses. Journal of Periodontal Research, 1995, 30,
192–197.
Bolanowski, S. J. , Gescheider, G. A. , & Verrillo, R. T. Expansion of the four channel model
for touch: Hairy skin. Somatosensory and Motor Research, 1994, 11, 279–290.
Bolanowski, S. J., Jr. , Gescheider, G. A. , Verrillo, R. T. , & Checkosky, C. M. Four
channels mediate the mechanical aspects of touch. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 1988, 84, 1680–1694.
Bolanowski, S. J., Jr. , & Verrillo, R. T. Temperature and criterion effects in a somatosensory
subsystem: A neurophysiological and psychophysical study. Journal of Neurophysiology,
1982, 48, 837–856.
Bolanowski, S. J., Jr. , Zwislocki, J. J. , & Gescheider, G. A. Intersensory generality and
psychological units. In S. J. Bolanowski, Jr. & G. A. Gescheider (Eds.), Ratio Scaling of
Psychological Magnitude: A Tribute to the Memory of S. S. Stevens, pp. 277–293. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1991.
Bond, B. , & Stevens, S. S. Cross-modality matching of brightness to loudness by 5-year-
olds. Perception and Psychophysics, 1969, 6, 337–339.
Borg, G. Perceived exertion as an indicator of somatic stress. Scandinavian Journal of
Rehabilitation Medicine, 1970, 2, 92–98.
Borg, G. A category scale with ratio properties for intermodal and interindividual
comparisons. In H. G. Geissler & P. Petzold (Eds.), Psychophysical Judgment and the
Process of Perception. Berlin, GDR: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften, 1982.
Borg, G. , & Borg, E. Principles and experiments in category-ratio scaling. Reports from the
Department of Psychology, Stockholm University, 1994, No. 789.
Borg, G. , Diamant, H. , Strom, L. , & Zotterman, Y. The relation between neural and
perceptual intensity: A comparative study on the neural and psychophysical response to
taste stimuli. Journal of Physiology, 1967, 192, 13–20.
Boring, E. G. A chart of the psychometric function. American Journal of Psychology, 1917,
28, 465–470.
Boring, E. G. The stimulus error. American Journal of Psychology, 1921, 32, 449–471.
Brindley, G. A. Physiology of the retina and the visual pathways. London: Edward Arnold
Ltd., 1960.
Brooks, D. N. Recognition memory after head injury: A signal detection analysis. Cortex,
1974, 40, 224–230.
Cain, W. S. Differential sensitivity for smell: “Noise” at the nose. Science, 1977, 195,
796–798.
Chapman, C. R. , & Feather, B. W. Effects of diazepam on human pain tolerance and pain
sensitivity. Psychosomatic Medicine, 1973, 35, 330–340.
Chapman, C. R. , Gehrig, J. D. , & Wilson, M. E. Acupuncture, pain and signal detection
theory. Science, 1975, 189, 65.
Churcher, B. G. A loudness scale for industrial noise measurement. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 1935, 6, 216–226.
Clark, W. C. Sensory decision theory analysis of the placebo effect on the criterion for pain
and thermal sensitivity (d′). Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1969, 74, 363–371.
Clark, W. C. , & Mehl, L. Thermal pain: A sensory decision theory analysis of the effect of
age and sex on d’, various response criteria, and 50% pain threshold. Journal of Abnormal
Psychology, 1971, 78, 202–212.
Cohn, J. Experimentelle Untersuchungen über die Gefuhlsbetonung der Farben,
Helligkeiten, und ihrer Combinationen. Philosophische Studien, 1894, 10, 562–603.
Collins, A. A. , & Gescheider, G. A. The measurement of loudness in children and adults by
absolute magnitude estimation and cross-modality matching. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 1989, 85, 2012–2021.
Cornsweet, T. N. The staircase method in psychophysics. American Journal of Psychology,
1962, 75, 485–491.
Cross, D. V. Sequential dependencies and regression in psychophysical judgments.
Perception & Psychophysics, 1973, 14, 547–552.
Curtis, D. W. , Attneave, F. , & Harrington, T. L. A test of a two-stage model of magnitude
judgment. Perception & Psychophysics, 1968, 3, 25–31.
Dai, H. , Versfeld, N. J. , & Green, D. M. The optimum decision rules in the same-different
paradigm. Perception & Psychophysics, 1996, 58, 1–9.
Davis, H. , & Krantz, F. W. International audiometric zero. Journal of the Acoustical Society
of America, 1964, 36, 1450–1454.
Dawson, W. E. Magnitude estimation of apparent sums and differences. Perception &
Psychophysics, 1971, 9, 368–374.
DeCarlo, L. T. Intertrial interval and sequential effects in magnitude scaling. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1992, 18, 1080–1088.
DeCarlo, L. T. A dynamic theory of proportional judgment: Context and judgments of length,
heaviness, and roughness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 1994, 20, 372–381.
Delbrück, M. A. physicist’s renewed look at biology: Twenty years later. Science, 1970, 168,
1312–1315.
Durup, G. , & Piéron, H. Recherches au sujet de l’interpretation du phénomène de Purkinje
par des différences dans les courbes de sensation des recepteurs chromatiques. L’Anniée
Psychologique, 1933, 33, 57–83.
Eisler, H. Empirical test of a model relating magnitude and category scales. Scandinavian
Journal of Psychology, 1962, 3, 88–96.
Eisler, H. Magnitude scales, category scales, and Fechnerian integration. Psychological
Review, 1963, 70, 243–253.
Ekman, G. Discriminal sensitivity on the subjective continuum. Acta Psychologica, 1956, 12,
233–243.
Ekman, G. Weber’s law and related functions. Journal of Psychology, 1959, 47, 343–352.
Ekman, G. Is the power law a special case of Fechner’s law? Perceptual and Motor Skills,
1964, 19, 730.
Ekman, G. , Frankenhaeuser, M. , Goldberg, L. , Hagdahl, R. , & Myrstern, A. Subjective
and objective effects of alcohol as functions of dosage and time. Psychopharmacologia,
1964, 6, 399–409.
Ekman, G. , & Künnapas, T. Measurement of aesthetic value by “direct” and “indirect”
methods. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1962a, 3, 33–39.
Ekman, G. , & Künnapas, T. Scales of aesthetic value. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1962b,
14, 19–26.
Ekman, G. , & Künnapas, T. A further study of direct and indirect scaling methods.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1963, 4, 77–80.
Ellermeier, W. , Westphal, W. , & Heidenfelder, M. On the “absoluteness” of category and
magnitude scales of pain. Perception & Psychophysics, 1991, 49, 159–166.
Elliot, L. Discrimination and response bias for CV syllables differing in voice onset time
among children and adults. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1986, 80,
1250–1255.
Engen, T. Psychophysics: Discrimination and detection. In J. W. Kling & L. A. Riggs
(Eds.),Woodworth & Schlosberg’s experimental psychology (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, 1971.
Engen, T. , & Tulunay, Ü. Some sources of error in half-heaviness judgments. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 1956, 54, 208–212.
Estes, W. K. The problem of inference from curves based on group data. Psychological
Bulletin, 1956, 53, 134–140.
Falmagne, J. C. The generalized Fechner problem and discrimination. Journal of
Mathematical Psychology, 1971, 8, 22–43.
Falmagne, J. C. Foundation of Fechnerian psychophysics. In D. H. Krantz , R. C. Atkinson ,
R. D. Luce , & P. Suppes (Eds.), Contemporary Developments in Mathematical Psychology:
Measurement, Psychophysics, and Neural Information Processing (Vol. 2), pp. 129–159.
San Francisco: Freeman, 1974.
Falmagne, J. C. Elements of Psychophysical Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1985.
Fechner, G. T. Element der Psychophysik. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härterl, 1860.
Fechner, G. T. Vorschule der Aesthetik. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härterl, 1876.
Fletcher, H. , & Munson, W. A. Loudness, its definition, measurement and calculation.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1933, 5, 82–108.
Foley, H. J. , Cross, D. V. , Foley, M. A. , & Reeder, R. Stimulus range, number of
categories and the “virtual” exponent. Perception & Psychophysics, 1983, 34, 505–512.
Foley, H. J. , Cross, D. V. , & O'Reilly, J. A. Pervasiveness and magnitude of context effects:
Evidence for the relativity of absolute magnitude estimation. Perception & Psychophysics,
1990, 48, 551–558.
Frankenhaeuser, M. , Fröberg, J. , Hagdahl, R. , Rissler, A. , Björkvall, C. , & Wolff, B.
Physiological, behavioral, and subjective indices of habituation to psychological stress.
Physiology and Behavior, 1967, 2, 229–237.
Frankenhaeuser, M. , Sterky, K. , & Järpe, G. Psychophysiological relations in habituation to
gravitational stress. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1962, 15, 63–72.
Frederiksen, J. R. Two models for psychological judgment: Scale invariance with changes in
stimulus range. Perception & Psychophysics, 1975, 17, 147–157.
Fullerton, G. S. , & Cattell, J. McK. On the perception of small differences. Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 1892.
Fuortes, M. G. F. , & Hodgkin, A. L. Changes in time scale and sensitivity in the ommatidia
of Limulus. Journal of Physiology, 1964, 172, 239–263.
Galanter, E. The direct measurement of utility and subjective probability. American Journal
of Psychology, 1962, 75, 208–220.
Galanter, E. , & Pliner, P. Cross-modality matching of money against other continua. In H.
R. Moskowitz , B. Scharf , & J. C. Stevens (Eds.), Sensation and measurement. Dordrecht,
Holland: Reidel, 1974.
Gamble, E. A. McC. The applicability of Weber’s law to smell. American Journal of
Psychology, 1898, 10, 82–142.
Garner, W. R. Context effects and the validity of loudness scales. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1954, 48, 218–224.
Gault, R. H. Touch as a substitute for hearing in the interpretation and control of speech.
Archives of Otolaryngology, 1926, 3, 121–135.
Gescheider, G. A. Auditory and cutaneous apparent successiveness. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 1967, 73, 179–186.
Gescheider, G. A. In defense of a sensory process theory of psychophysical scaling. The
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1981, 4, 194.
Gescheider, G. A. , Barton, W. G. , Bruce, M. R. , Goldberg, J. H. , & Greenspan, M. J. The
effects of simultaneous auditory stimulation upon the detection of tactile stimuli. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 1969, 81, 120–125.
Gescheider, G. A. , & Bolanowski, S. J., Jr. Final comments on ratio scaling of psychological
magnitude. In S. J. Bolanowski, Jr. & G. A. Gescheider (Eds.), Ratio Scaling of
Psychological Magnitude: In Honor of the Memory of S. S. Stevens, pp. 295–311. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1991.
Gescheider, G. A. , Bolanowski, S. J., Jr. , & Verrillo, R. T. Sensory, cognitive and response
factors in the judgment of sensory magnitude. In D. Algom (Ed.), Psychophysical
Approaches to Cognition, pp. 575–621. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1992.
Gescheider, G. A. , Bolanowski, S. J., Jr. , Verrillo, R. T. , Arpajian, D. J. , & Ryan, T. F.
Vibrotactile intensity discrimination measured by three methods. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 1990, 87, 330–338.
Gescheider, G. A. , Bolanowski, S. J. , Zwislocki, J. J. , Hall, K. L. , & Mascia, C. The effects
of masking on the growth of vibrotactile sensation magnitude and on the intensity DL: A test
of the equal sensation magnitude—equal DL hypothesis. Journal of the Acoustical Society
of America, 1994, 96, 1479–1488.
Gescheider, G. A. , Catlin, E. C. , & Fontana, A. M. Psychophysical measurement of the
judged seriousness of crimes and severity of punishments. Bulletin of the Psychonomic
Society, 1982, 19, 275–278.
Gescheider, G. A. , Edwards, R. R. , Lackner, E. A. , Bolanowski, S. J. , & Verrillo, R. T. The
effects of aging on information processing channels in the sense of touch: III Differential
sensitivity to changes in stimulus intensity. Somatosensory and Motor Research, 1996, 13,
73–80.
Gescheider, G. A. , Frisina, R. D. , & Verrillo, R. T. Selective adaptation of vibrotactile
thresholds. Sensory Processes, 1979, 3, 37–48.
Gescheider, G. A. , Herman, D. D. , & Phillips, J. N. Criterion shifts in the measurement of
tactile masking. Perception & Psychophysics, 1970, 8, 433–436.
Gescheider, G. A. , & Hughson, B. A. Stimulus context and absolute magnitude estimation:
A study of individual differences. Perception & Psychophysics, 1991, 50, 45–57.
Gescheider, G. A. , Verrillo, R. T. , Capraro, A. J. , & Hamer, R. D. Enhancement of
vibrotactile sensation magnitude and predictions from the duplex model of
mechanoreception. Sensory Processes, 1977, 1, 187–203.
Gescheider, G. A. , & Wright, J. H. Effects of sensory adaptation on the form of the
psychophysical magnitude function for cutaneous vibration. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1968, 77, 308–313.
Gescheider, G. A. , Wright, J. H. , & Polak, J. W. Detection of vibrotactile signals differing in
probability of occurrence. Journal of Psychology, 1971, 78, 253–260.
Gescheider, G. A. , Wright, J. H. , Weber, B. J. , & Barton, W. G. Absolute thresholds in
vibrotactile signal detection. Perception and Psychophysics, 1971, 10, 413–417.
Goff, G. D. Differential discrimination of frequency of cutaneous mechanical vibration.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 74, 294–299.
Graham, C. H. , Brown, R. H. , & Mote, F. A., Jr. The relation of size of stimulus and
intensity in the human eye: I. Intensity thresholds for white light. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1939, 24, 255–573.
Green, D. M. Stimulus selection in adaptive psychophysical procedures. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 1990, 87, 2662–2674.
Green, D. M. , & Swets, J. A. Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley,
1966.
Greene, L. C. , & Hardy, J. D. Spatial summation of pain. Journal of Applied Physiology,
1958, 13, 457–464.
Gregg, L. W. Fractionation of temporal intervals. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1951,
42, 307–312.
Gregson, R. A. M. Nonlinear psychophysical dynamics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 1988.
Grossberg, J. M. , & Grant, B. F. Clinical psychophysics: Applications of ratio scaling and
signal detection methods to research on pain, fear, drugs, and medical decision making.
Psychological Bulletin, 1978, 85, 1154–1176.
Guilford, J. P. Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1954.
Gulick, W. L. , Gescheider, G. A. , & Frisina, R. D. Hearing: Physiological Acoustics, Neural
Coding, and Psychoacoustics. New York: Oxford, 1989.
Hacker, M. J. , & Ratcliff, R. A revised table of d′ for M-alternative forced choice. Perception
& Psychophysics, 1979, 26, 168–170.
Hamer, R. D. Vibrotactile masking: Evidence for a peripheral energy threshold. Syracuse,
NY: Syracuse University, 1979. (Institute for Sensory Research, PhD and Special Report
No. ISR-S-18)
Hanes, R. M. A scale of subjective brightness. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1949,
39, 438–452. (a)
Hanes, R. M. The construction of subjective brightness scales from fractionation data: A
validation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1949, 39, 719–728. (b)
Hardy, J. D. , Wolff, H. G. , & Goodell, H. Studies on pain: Discrimination of differences in
pain as a basis of a scale of pain intensity. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 1947, 26,
1152–1158.
Harper, R. S. , & Stevens, S. S. A psychological scale for weight and a formula for its
derivation. American Journal of Psychology, 1948, 61, 343–351.
Hartline, H. K. , & Graham, C. H. Nerve impulses from single receptors in the eye. Journal of
Cellular and Comparative Physiology, 1932, 1, 277–295.
Hautus, M. J. , Irwin, J. R. , & Sutherland, S. Relativity of judgements about sound amplitude
and the asymmetry of the same-different ROC. Quarterly Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1994, 47A, 1035–1045.
Hecht, S. Vision II. The nature of the photoreceptor process. In C. Murchison (Ed.),
Handbook of general experimental psychology. Worcester, MA: Clark University Press,
1934.
Hecht, S. , Haig, C. , & Chase, A. M. Influence of light adaptation on subsequent dark
adaptation of the eye. Journal of General Physiology, 1937, 20, 831–850.
Hecht, S. , Shlaer, S. , & Pirenne, M. H. Energy, quanta, and vision. Journal of General
Physiology, 1942, 25, 819–840.
Heller, O. Hörfeldaudiometrie mit dem Verfahren der Kategorienunterteilung (KU).
Psychologische Beiträge, 1985, 27, 478–493.
Hellman, R. P. Growth of loudness at 1000 and 3000 Hz. Journal of the Acoustical Society
of America, 1976, 60, 672–679.
Hellman, R. P. , Scharf, B. , Teghtsoonian, M. , & Teghtsoonian, R. On the relation between
the growth of loudness and the discrimination of intensity for pure tones. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 1987, 82, 448–452.
Hellman, R. P. , & Zwislocki, J. J. Some factors affecting the estimation of loudness. Journal
of the Acoustical Society of America, 1961, 33, 687–694.
Hellman, R. P. , & Zwislocki, J. J. Monaural loudness function of a 1000-cps tone and
internal summation. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1963, 35, 856–865.
Hellman, R. P. , & Zwislocki, J. J. Loudness function of a 1000-cps tone in the presence of a
masking noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1964, 36, 1618–1627.
Hellman, R. P. , & Zwislocki, J. J. Loudness determination at low sound frequencies. Journal
of the Acoustical Society of America, 1968, 43, 60–64.
Hellström, A. The time-order error and its relatives: Mirrors of cognitive processes in
comparing. Psychological Bulletin, 1985, 97, 35–61.
Helson, H. Adaptation level as a basis for quantitative theory of frames of reference.
Psychological Review, 1948, 55, 297–313.
Helson, H. Adaptation level theory. In S. Koch (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science (Vol.
1), pp. 565–621. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1959.
Helson, H. Adaptation level theory—An experimental and systematic approach to behavior.
New York: Harper and Row, 1964.
Herbart, J. F. Psychologie als Wissenschaft, neu gegrundet Auferfahrung, Metaphysik, und
Mathematik. Königsberg, Germany: Unzer, 1824.
Hilgard, E. R. Pain as a puzzle for psychology and physiology. American Psychologist,
1969, 24, 103–113.
Hollins, M. , Faldowski, R. , Rao, S. , & Young, F. Perceptual dimensions of tactile surface
texture: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 1993, 54,
697–705.
Hollins, M. , Goble, A. K. , Whitsel, B. L. , & Tommerdahl, M. Time course and action
spectrum of vibrotactile adaptation. Somatosensory and Motor Research, 1990, 7, 205–221.
Holmes, T. H. , & Rahe, R. H. The social readjustment rating scale. Journal of
Psychosomatic Research, 1967, 11, 213–218.
Horeman, H. W. Relation between brightness and luminance under induction. Vision
Research, 1965, 5, 331–340.
Hsia, Y. , & Graham, C. H. Spectral sensitivity of the cones in the dark adapted human eye.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, 1952, 38, 80–85.
Ingham, J. G. Individual differences in signal detection. Acta Psychologica, 1970, 34, 39–50.
Irwin, J. R. , Stillman, J. A. , Hautus, M. J. , & Huddleston, L. M. The measurement of taste
discrimination with the same-different task: A detection-theory analysis. Journal of Sensory
Studies, 1993, 8, 229–239.
Jastrow, J. The psychophysic law and star magnitudes. American Journal of Psychology,
1887, 1, 112–127.
Jesteadt, W. , Luce, R. D. , & Green, D. M. Sequential effects in judgments of loudness.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1977, 3, 92–104.
Jones, F. N. A forced-choice method of limits. American Journal of Psychology, 1956, 69,
672–673.
Kenshalo, D. R. , Decker, T. , & Hamilton, A. Spatial summation on the forehead, forearm,
and back produced by radiant and conducted heat. Journal of Comparative and
Physiological Psychology, 1967, 63, 510–515.
Kerst, S. M. , & Howard, J. H., Jr. Memory psychophysics for visual area and length.
Memory & Cognition, 1978, 6, 327–335.
König, A. , & Brodhun, E. Experimentelle Untersuchungen ueber die psychophysiche
Fundamental-formel in Bezug auf den Gesichtssinn. Sitzungsberichte Preussische
Akademie Wissenschaften, Berlin, 1889, 27, 641–644.
Krantz, D. H. Threshold theories of signal detection. Psychological Review, 1969, 76,
308–324.
Künnapas, T. , & Wikström, I. Measurement of occupational preferences: A comparison of
scaling methods. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1963, 17, 611–694.
Laming, D. , & Marsh, D. Some performance tests of QUEST on measurements of
vibrotactile thresholds. Perception & Psychophysics, 1988, 44, 99–107.
Leon, M. Integration of intent and consequence information in children’s moral judgment. In
F. Wilkening , J. Becker , & T. Trabasso (Eds.), Information integration by children. Hillsdale,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1980.
Levitt, H. L. Transformed up-down methods in psychophysics. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 1971, 49, 467–477.
Lieberman, H. R. , & Pentland, A. P. Computer technology: Microcomputer-based estimation
of psychophysical thresholds: The best PEST. Behavior Research Methods &
Instrumentation, 1982, 14, 21–25.
Link, S. W. The wave theory of difference and similarity. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, 1992.
Lockhart, R. S. , & Murdock, B. B., Jr. Memory and the theory of signal detection.
Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 74, 100–109.
Lockhead, G. R. Psychophysical scaling: Judgments of attributes or objects? Behavioral and
Brain Sciences, 1992, 15, 543–601.
Luce, R. D. A threshold theory for simple detection experiments. Psychological Review,
1963, 70, 61–79.
Luce, R. D. What sort of measurement is psychophysical measurement? American
Psychologist, 1972, 27, 96–106.
Luce, R. D. , & Galanter, E. Discrimination. In R. D. Luce , R. R. Bush , & E. Galanter (Eds.),
Handbook of Mathematical Psychology (Vol. 1), pp. 191–243. New York: Wiley, 1963.
Luce, R. D. , & Green, D. M. The response ratio hypothesis for magnitude estimation.
Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1974, 11, 1–14.
Ludvigh, E. , & McCarthy, E. F. Absorption of visible light by the refractive media of the
human eye. Archives of Ophthalmology, 1938, 20, 37–51.
Lusted, L. B. Signal detectability and medical decision-making. Science, 1971, 171,
1217–1219.
MacKay, D. M. Psychophysics of perceived intensity: A theoretical basis for Fechner’s and
Stevens’ laws. Science, 1963, 139, 1213–1216.
Macmillan, N. A. , & Creelman, C. D. Response bias: Characteristics of detection-theory,
threshold-theory, and “nonparametric” indexes. Psychological Bulletin, 1990, 107, 401–413.
Macmillan, N. A. , & Creelman, C. D. Detection theory: A user’s guide. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Markowitz, J. , & Swets, J. A. Factors affecting the slope of empirical ROC curves:
Comparison of binary and rating responses. Perception and Psychophysics, 1967, 2, 91–97.
Marks, L. E. Spatial summation in the warmth sense. In H. R. Moskowitz , B. Scharf , & J. C.
Stevens (Eds.), Sensation and measurement. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 1974.(a)
Marks, L. E. Sensory processes. New York: Academic Press, 1974.(b)
Marks, L. E. On scales of sensation: Prolegomena to any future psychophysics that will
come forth as sciences. Perception & Psychophysics, 1974, 16, 358–376. (c)
Marks, L. E. The unity of the senses: Interrelations among the modalities. New York:
Academic Press, 1978.(a)
Marks, L. E. Binaural summation of the loudness of pure tones. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 1978, 64, 107–113. (b)
Marks, L. E. Phonion: Translation and annotation concerning loudness scales and the
processing of auditory intensity. In N. J. Castellan, Jr. , & F. Restle (Eds.), Cognitive theory
(Vol. 3). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1978.(c)
Marks, L. E. Summation of vibrotactile intensity: An analog to auditory critical bands?
Sensory Processes, 1979, 3, 188–203. (a)
Marks, L. E. A theory of loudness and loudness judgment. Psychological Review, 1979, 86,
256–285. (b)
Marks, L. E. Sensory and cognitive factors in judgments of loudness. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 1979, 5, 426–443. (c)
Marks, L. E. Psychophysical measurement: Procedures, tasks, scales. In B. Wegener (Ed.),
Social Attitudes and Psychophysical Measurement, pp. 43–71. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, 1982.
Marks, L. E. Reliability of magnitude matching. Perception & Psychophysics, 1991, 49,
31–37.
Marks, L. E. The contingency of perceptual processing: Context modifies equal-loudness
relations. Psychological Science, 1992, 3, 285–291.
Marks, L. E. , & Algom, D. Psychophysical Scaling (in press).
Marks, L. E. , Borg, G. , & Ljunggren, G. Individual differences in perceived exertion
assessed by two new methods. Perception & Psychophysics, 1983, 34, 280–288.
Marks, L. E. , & Stevens, J. C. Individual brightness functions. Perception and
Psychophysics, 1966, 2, 17–24.
Marks, L. E. , & Stevens, J. C. The form of the psychophysical function near threshold.
Perception and Psychophysics, 1968, 4, 315–318.
Marks, L. E. , & Stevens, J. C. Spatial summation of warmth: Influence of duration and
configuration of the stimulus. American Journal of Psychology, 1973, 86, 251–267.
Marks, L. E. , Stevens, J. C. , Bartoshuk, L. M. , Gent, J. F. , Rifkin, B. , & Stone, V. K.
Magnitude-matching: The measurement of taste and smell. Chemical Senses, 1988, 13,
63–87.
Marks, L. E. , Szczesiul, R. , & Ohlott, P. On the cross-modality perception of intensity.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1986, 12,
517–534.
McBurney, D. H. Magnitude estimation of the taste of sodium chloride after adaptation to
sodium chloride. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 72, 869–873.
McGill, W. J. , & Goldberg, J. P. A study of the near-miss involving Weber’s law and pure-
tone intensity discrimination. Perception & Psychophysics, 1968, 4, 105–109. (a)
McGill, W. J. , & Goldberg, J. P. Pure-tone intensity discrimination and energy detection.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1968, 44, 576–581. (b)
Melara, R. D. The concept of perceptual similarity: From psychophysics to cognitive
psychology. In D. Algom (Ed.), Psychophysical Approaches to Cognition. Amsterdam:
North-Holland, 1992.
Mellers, B. A. Evidence against “absolute” scaling. Perception & Psychophysics, 1983, 33,
523–526.
Miller, E. , & Lewis, P. Recognition memory in elderly patients with depression and
dementia: A signal detection analysis. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1977, 86, 84–86.
Miller, G. A. Sensitivity to changes in the intensity of white noise and its relation to masking
and loudness. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1947, 19, 609–619.
Montgomery, H. Direct estimation: Effect of methodological factors on scale type.
Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1975, 36, 19–29.
Moyer, R. S. , Bradley, D. R. , Sorensen, M. H. , Whiting, J. C. , & Mansfield, D. P.
Psychophysical functions for perceived and remembered size. Science, 1978, 200,
330–332.
Munsell, A. E. O. , Sloan, L. L. , & Godlove, I. H. Neutral value scales: I. Munsell neutral
value scale. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1933, 23, 394–411.
Noreen, E. D. Optimal decision rules for some common psychophysical paradigms. In S.
Grossberg (Ed.), Mathematical Psychology and Psychophysiology: Seminars in Applied
Mathematics (Vol. 13), pp. 237–280. Providence, RI: American Mathematical Society, 1981.
Norman, D. A. Neural quantum controversy in sensory psychology. Science, 1973, 181,
468–469.
Norwich, K. H. Information, sensation, and perception. Orlando, FL: Academic Press, 1993.
Oberlin, W. K. Variation in intensive sensitivity to lifted weights. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1936, 19, 438–455.
Parducci, A. Category judgment: A range-frequency model. Psychological Review, 1965, 75,
407–418.
Parducci, A. Contextual effects: A range-frequency analysis. In E. C. Carterette & M. P.
Friedman (Eds.), Handbook of Perception: Psychophysical judgment and measurement
(Vol. 2), pp. 127–141. New York: Academic Press, 1974.
Parker, S. , & Schneider, B. Non-metric scaling of loudness and pitch using similarity and
difference estimates. Perception & Psychophysics, 1974, 15, 238–242.
Parker, S. , & Schneider, B. The stimulus range effect: Evidence of top-down control of
sensory intensity in audition. Perception & Psychophysics, 1994, 56, 1–11.
Pascal, B. Pensées. New York: Dutton, 1958. (originally published, 1670)
Peck, R. E. The application of thymometry to the measurement of anxiety. International
Journal of Neuropsychiatry, 1966, 2, 337–341.
Pentland, A. Maximum likelihood estimation: The best PEST. Perception & Psychophysics,
1980, 28, 377–379.
Petrus, B. W. , & Bolanowski, S. J. Mechanics of Pacinian corpuscles, 1996. Unpublished
manuscript.
Plateau, J. A. F. Sur la mesure des sensations physiques, et sur la loi que lie l’intensité de
ces sensations à l’intensité de la cause excitante. Bulletins de I’ Academie Royale des
Sciences, des Lettres, et des Beaux-Arts de Belgique, 1872, 33, 376–388.
Pollack, I. , & Norman, D. A. A non-parametric analysis of recognition experiments.
Psychonomic Science, 1964, 1, 125–126.
Popper, R. D. , Parker, S. , & Galanter, E. Dual loudness scales in individual subjects.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1986, 12, 61–69.
Poulton, E. The new psychophysics: Six models for magnitude estimation. Psychological
Bulletin, 1968, 69, 1–19.
Poulton, E. C. Models of bias in judging sensory magnitude. Psychological Bulletin, 1979,
86, 777–803.
Pradhan, P. L. , & Hoffman, P. J. Effect of spacing and range of stimuli on magnitude
estimation judgments. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 66, 533–541.
Rahe, R. H. , Romo, M. , Bennett, L. , & Siltanen, P. Recent life changes, myocardial
infarction, and abrupt coronary death: Studies in Helsinki. Archives of Internal Medicine,
1974, 133, 221–228.
Riesz, R. R. Differential intensity sensitivity of the ear for pure tones. Physical Review, 1928,
31, 867–875.
Robinson, D. W. , & Dadson, R. S. A re-determination of the equal loudness relations for
pure tones. British Journal of Applied Physics, 1956, 7, 166–181.
Rodieck, R. W. The vertebrate retina. San Francisco: Freeman, 1973.
Rollman, G. B. Cognitive effects in pain and pain judgments. In D. Algom (Ed.),
Psychophysical approaches to cognition, pp. 515–574. Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1992.
Ross, S. , & Katchmer, L. The construction of a magnitude function for short time intervals.
American Journal of Psychology, 1951, 64, 397–401.
Rowley, R. R. , & Studebaker, G. A. Monaural loudness-intensity relationships for a 1000 Hz
tone. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1969, 45, 1193–1205.
Savage, C. W. Introspectionist and behaviorist interpretations of ratio scales of perceptual
magnitudes. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80(19, Whole No. 627).
Savage, C. W. The measurement of sensation. Berkeley: University of California Press,
1970.
Scharf, B. Complex sounds and critical bands. Psychological Bulletin, 1961, 58, 205–217.
Scharf, B. , & Stevens, J. C. The form of the loudness function near threshold. Proceedings
of the 3rd International Congress on Acoustics, Stuttgart, 1959 (Vol. I). Amsterdam:
Elsevier, 1961.
Schiffman, S. S. , Reynolds, M. L. , & Young, F. W. Introduction to Multidimensional Scaling:
Theory, Methods and Applications. New York: Academic Press, 1981.
Schneider, B. Individual loudness functions determined from direct comparisons of loudness
intervals. Perception & Psychophysics, 1980, 27, 493–503.
Schneider, B. , & Parker, S. Does stimulus context affect loudness or only loudness
judgments? Perception & Psychophysics, 1990, 48, 409–418.
Schneider, B. , Parker, S. , & Stein, D. The measurement of loudness using direct
comparisons of sensory intervals. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1974, 11, 259–273.
Schneider, B. , Parker, S. , Valenti, M. , Farrell, G. , & Kanow, G. Response bias in category
and magnitude estimation of difference and similarity for loudness and pitch. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1978, 4, 483–496.
Sellin, T. , & Wolfgang, M. E. The measurement of delinquency. New York: Wiley, 1964.
Shepard, R. Metric structures in ordinal data. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1966, 3,
287–315.
Shepard, R. N. On the status of “direct” psychological measurement. In C. W. Savage (Ed.),
Minnesota Studies in the Philosophy of Science (Vol. 9), pp. 441–490. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press, 1978.
Shepard, R. N. Psychological relations and psychological scales: On the status of “direct”
psychophysical measurement. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1981, 24, 21–57.
Sivian, L. J. , & White, S. D. On minimum audible sound fields. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 1933, 4, 288–321.
Snodgrass, J. G. , & Corwin, J. Pragmatics of measuring recognition memory: Application to
dementia and amnesia. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1988, 117, 34–50.
Sorkin, R. D. Extension of the theory of signal detectability to matching procedures in
psychoacoustics. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1962, 34, 1745–1751.
Stenson, H. , Kleinmuntz, B. , & Scott, B. Personality assessment as a signal detection task.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1975, 43, 794–799.
Stevens, J. C. , & Guirao, M. Individual loudness functions. Journal of the Acoustical Society
of America, 1964, 36, 2210–2213.
Stevens, J. C. , & Mack, J. D. Scales of apparent force. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1959, 58, 405–413.
Stevens, J. C. , Mack, J. D. , & Stevens, S. S. Growth of sensation on seven continua as
measured by force of handgrip. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1960, 59, 60–67.
Stevens, J. C. , & Marks, L. E. Spatial summation and the dynamics of warmth sensation.
Perception and Psychophysics, 1971, 9, 291–298.
Stevens, J. C. , & Marks, L. E. Cross-modality matching functions generated by magnitude
estimation. Perception & Psychophysics, 1980, 27, 379–389.
Stevens, J. C. , Plantinga, A. , & Cain, W. S. Reduction of order and nasal pungency
associated with aging. Neurobiology of Aging, 1982, 3, 125–132.
Stevens, J. C. , & Stevens, S. S. Warmth and cold: Dynamics of sensory intensity. Journal
of Experimental Psychology, 1960, 60, 183–192.
Stevens, J. C. , & Stevens, S. S. Brightness function: Effects of adaptation. Journal of the
Optical Society of America, 1963, 53, 375–385.
Stevens, S. S. A scale for the measurement for a psychological magnitude: Loudness.
Psychological Review, 1936, 43, 405–416.
Stevens, S. S. Handbook of experimental psychology. New York: Wiley, 1951.
Stevens, S. S. On the brightness of lights and loudness of sounds. Science, 1953, 118, 576.
(Abstract)
Stevens, S. S. Pitch discrimination, mels, and Koch’s contention. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 1954, 26, 1075–1077.
Stevens, S. S. The measurement of loudness. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
1955, 27, 815–820.
Stevens, S. S. The direct estimation of sensory magnitude—loudness. American Journal of
Psychology, 1956, 69, 1–25.
Stevens, S. S. On the psychophysical law. Psychological Review, 1957, 64, 153–181.
Stevens, S. S. Problems and methods of psychophysics. Psychological Bulletin, 1958, 55,
177–196.
Stevens, S. S. Cross-modality validations of subjective scales for loudness, vibrations, and
electric shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1959, 57, 201–209. (a)
Stevens, S. S. Tactile vibration: Dynamics of sensory intensity. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 1959, 57, 210–218. (b)
Stevens, S. S. Ratio scales, partition scales and confusion scales. In H. Gulliksen & S.
Messick (Eds.), Psychological scaling: Theory and applications. New York: Wiley, 1960.
Stevens, S. S. The psychophysics of sensory function. In W. A. Rosenblith (Ed.), Sensory
communication. Boston: MIT Press, 1961.(a)
Stevens, S. S. Is there a quantal threshold? In W. A. Rosenblith (Ed.), Sensory
communication. Boston: MIT Press, 1961.(b)
Stevens, S. S. The basis of psychophysical judgments. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 1963, 35, 611–612.
Stevens, S. S. Matching functions between loudness and ten other continua. Perception and
Psychophysics, 1966, 1, 5–8. (a)
Stevens, S. S. Power-group transformations under glare, masking, and recruitment. Journal
of the Acoustical Society of America, 1966, 39, 725–735. (b)
Stevens, S. S. On the operation known as judgment. American Scientist, 1966, 54,
385–401. (c)
Stevens, S. S. A metric for social consensus. Science, 1966, 151, 530–541. (d)
Stevens, S. S. Neural events and the psychophysical law. Science, 1970, 170, 1043–1050.
Stevens, S. S. Issues in psychophysical measurement. Psychological Review, 1971, 78,
426–450. (a)
Stevens, S. S. Sensory power functions and neural events. In W. R. Loewenstein (Ed.),
Handbook of sensory physiology (Vol. 1). Berlin and New York: Springer-Verlag, 1971. (b)
Stevens, S. S. A neural quantum in sensory discrimination. Science, 1972, 177, 749–762.
(a)
Stevens, S. S. Perceived level of noise by Mark VII and db(E). Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 1972, 51, 575–601. (b)
Stevens, S. S. Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual, neural and social prospects.
New York: Wiley, 1975.
Stevens, S. S. , Carton, A. S. , & Shickman, G. M. A scale of apparent intensity of electric
shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958, 56, 328–334.
Stevens, S. S. , & Galanter, E. H. Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen perceptual
continua. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1957, 54, 377–411.
Stevens, S. S. , & Guirao, M. Loudness, reciprocality, and partition scales. Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America, 1962, 34, 1466–1471.
Stevens, S. S. , Guirao, M. , & Slawson, A. W. Loudness, a product of volume times density.
Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1965, 69, 503–510.
Stevens, S. S. , Morgan, C. E. , & Volkmann, J. Theory of neural quantum in the
discrimination of loudness and pitch. American Journal of Psychology, 1941, 54, 315–355.
Stevens, S. S. , & Volkmann, J. The relation of pitch to frequency: A revised scale. American
Journal of Psychology, 1940, 53, 329–353.
Stiles, W. S. A. Color vision: The approach through increment-threshold sensitivity.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1959, 45, 100–114.
Stone, L. A. Bases for psychiatric impairment severity judgments: Psychophysical power
functions? Studia Psychologica, 1968, 10, 194–199.
Stuiver, M. Biophysics of the sense of smell. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of
Gronigen, Netherlands, 1958.
Swets, J. A. Indices of signal detectability obtained with various psychophysical procedures.
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1959, 31, 511–513.
Swets, J. A. Is there a sensory threshold? Science, 1961, 134, 168–177.
Swets, J. A. The relative operating characteristics in psychology. Science, 1973, 182,
990–1000.
Swets, J. A. Form of empirical ROCs in discrimination and diagnostic tasks. Psychological
Bulletin, 1986, 99, 100–117.
Swets, J. A. Measuring the accuracy of diagnostic systems. Science, 1988, 240,
1285–1293.
Swets, J. A. The science of choosing the right decision threshold in high-stake diagnostics.
American Psychologist, 1992, 47, 522–532.
Swets, J. H. , & Pickett, R. M. Evaluation of Diagnostic Systems: Methods From Signal
Detection Theory. New York: Academic Press, 1982.
Swets, J. A. , Pickett, R. M. , Whitehead, S. F. , Getty, D. J. , Schnur, J. A. , Swets, J. B. , &
Freeman, B. A. Assessment of diagnostic technologies. Science, 1979, 205, 753–759.
Swets, J. A. , Tanner, W. P., Jr. , & Birdsall, T. G. The evidence for a decision-making
theory of visual detection. University of Michigan: Electronic Defense Group Technical
Report No. 40, 1955.
Swets, J. A. , Tanner, W. P., Jr. , & Birdsall, T. G. Decision processes in perception.
Psychological Review, 1961, 68, 301–340.
Tanner, T. A. , Haller, R. D. , & Atkinson, R. C. Signal recognition as influenced by
presentation schedules. Perception & Psychophysics, 1967, 2, 349–358.
Tanner, W. P., Jr. , & Swets, J. A. A decision-making theory of visual detection.
Psychological Review, 1954, 61, 401–409.
Tanner, W. P., Jr. , Swets, J. A. , & Green, D. M. Some general properties of the hearing
mechanism. University of Michigan: Electronic Defense Group Technical Report No. 30,
1956.
Taylor, M. M. , & Creelman, C. D. PEST: Efficient estimates on probability functions. Journal
of the Acoustical Society of America, 1967, 41, 782–787.
Teghtsoonian, M. The judgment of size. American Journal of Psychology, 1965, 78,
392–402.
Teghtsoonian, R. On the exponents in Stevens’ law and the constant in Ekman’s law.
Psychological Review, 1971, 78, 71–80.
Teghtsoonian, R. Range effects in psychophysical scaling and a revision of Stevens’ Law.
American Journal of Psychology, 1973, 86, 3–27.
Teghtsoonian, R. , & Teghtsoonian, M. Range and regression effects in magnitude scaling.
Perception & Psychophysics, 1978, 24, 305–314.
Thalmann, R. Cross-modality matching in a study of abnormal loudness functions.
Laryngoscope, 1965, 75, 1708–1726.
Thorndike, E. L. Handwriting. Teachers College Record, 1910, 11, No. 2.
Thurstone, L. L. A law of comparative judgment. Psychological Review, 1927, 34, 273–286.
Thurstone, L. L. The phi-gamma hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1928, 9,
293–305.
Thurstone, L. L. The measurement of values. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1959.
Titchener, E. B. Experimental psychology: Quantitative. New York: Macmillan, 1905.
Tonndorf, J. , & Khanna, S. M. Submicroscopic displacement amplitudes of the tympanic
membrane (cat) measured by a laser interferometer. Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America, 1968, 44, 1546–1554.
Torgerson, W. S. Theory and methods of scaling. New York: Wiley, 1958.
Triesman, M. Sensory scaling and the psychophysical law. Quarterly Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 1964, 16, 11–22.
Tryon, W. W. Psychophysical scaling and hierarchy construction. Journal of Behavior
Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1977, 8, 53–56.
Ulehla, Z. J. , & Adams, D. K. Detection theory and expectations for social reinforcers: An
application to aggression. Psychological Review, 1973, 80, 439–445.
Urban, F. M. The future of psychophysics. Psychological Review, 1930, 37, 93–106.
Vallbo, A. B. , & Johansson, R. S. Skin mechanoreceptors in the human hand: Neural and
psychophysical thresholds. In Y. Zotterman (Ed.), Sensory functions of the skin in primates.
Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1976.
Vendrik, A. J. H. , & Eijkman, E. G. Psychophysical properties determined with internal
noise. In D. R. Kenshalo (Ed.), The skin senses. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, 1968.
Verrillo, R. T. Effect of contactor area on the vibrotactile threshold. Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America, 1963, 35, 1962–1966.
Verrillo, R. T. Vibrotactile sensitivity and the frequency response of the Pacinian corpuscle.
Psychonomic Science, 1966, 4, 135–136.
Verrillo, R. T. Cutaneous sensation. In B. Scharf (Ed.), Experimental sensory psychology.
Scott, Foresman & Co., 1975.
Verrillo, R. T. Stability of line-length estimates using the method of absolute magnitude
estimation. Perception and Psychophysics, 1983, 33, 261–265.
Verrillo, R. T. , Fraioli, A. J. , & Smith, R. L. Sensory magnitude of vibrotactile stimuli.
Perception & Psychophysics, 1969, 6, 366–372.
Verrillo, R. T. , & Gescheider, G. A. Enhancement and summation in the perception of two
successive vibrotactile stimuli. Perception and Psychophysics, 1975, 18, 128–136.
Verrillo, R. T. , & Gescheider, G. A. Effect of double ipsilateral stimulation on vibrotactile
sensation magnitude. Sensory Processes, 1976, 1, 127–137.
Verrillo, R. T. , & Gescheider, G. A. Effect of prior stimulation on vibrotactile thresholds.
Sensory Processes, 1977, 1, 292–300.
Versfeld, N. J. , Dai, H. , & Green, D. M. The optimum decision rules for the oddity task.
Perception & Psychophysics, 1996, 58, 10–21.
Wald, G. Human vision and the spectrum. Science, 1945, 101, 653–658.
Wald, G. The receptors of human color vision. Science, 1964, 245, 1007–1017.
Ward, L. M. Repeated magnitude estimations with a variable standard: Sequential effects
and other properties. Perception and Psychophysics, 1973, 13, 193–200.
Ward, L. M. Critical bands and mixed-frequency scaling: Sequential dependencies, equal-
loudness contours, and power function exponents. Perception & Psychophysics, 1990, 47,
551–562.
Ward, L. M. Mind in psychophysics. In D. Algom (Ed.), Psychophysical approaches to
cognition (pp. 187–249). Amsterdam: North-Holland Elsevier, 1992.
Warren, R. M. A basis for judgments of sensory intensity. American Journal of Psychology,
1958, 71, 675–687.
Warren, R. M. Reply to S. S. Stevens. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1963,
35, 1663–1665.
Warren, R. M. Visual intensity judgments: An empirical rule and a theory. Psychological
Review, 1969, 76, 16–30.
Warren, R. M. Measurement of sensory intensity. The Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1981,
4, 175–223.
Warren, R. M. , Sersen, E. A. , & Pores, E. A basis for loudness judgments. American
Journal of Psychology, 1958, 71, 700–709.
Warren, R. M. , & Warren, R. P. A critique of S. S. Stevens’ “new psychophysics.”
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1963, 16, 797–810.
Watson, A. B. , & Pelli, D. G. QUEST: A Bayesian adaptive psychometric method.
Perception & Psychophysics, 1983, 33, 113–120.
Weber, E. H. De pulsu, resorpitione, auditu et tactu: Annotationes anatomicae et
physiologicae. Leipzig: Koehlor, 1834.
Wetherill, G. B. , & Levitt, H. Sequential estimation of points on a psychometric function.
British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1965, 18, 1–10.
Wickelgren, W. A. , & Norman, D. A. Strength models of serial position in short-term
recognition memory. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1966, 3, 316–347.
Wilska, A. Eine Methode zur Bestimmung der Horschwell enamplituden des Trommelfels bei
verschiedenen Freguenzen. Skandinavisches Archiv für Physiologie, 1935, 72, 161–165.
Wolpe, J. Quantitative relationships in the systematic desensitization of phobias. American
Journal of Psychiatry, 1963, 119, 1062–1068.
Wright, A. A. Psychometric and psychophysical theory within a framework of response bias.
Psychological Review, 1974, 81, 322–347.
Zinnes, J. L. Scaling. Annual Review of Psychology, 1969, 20, 447–478.
Zuriff, G. E. A behavioral interpretation of psychophysical scaling. Behaviorism, 1972, 1,
118–133.
Zwislocki, J. J. An analysis of some auditory characteristics. In R. D. Luce , R. R. Bush , &
E. Galanter (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. III). New York: Wiley, 1965.
Zwislocki, J. J. On intensity characteristics of sensory receptors: A generalized function.
Kybernetik, 1973, 12, 169–183.
Zwislocki, J. J. A power function for sensory receptors. In H. R. Moskowitz , B. Scharf , & J.
C. Stevens (Eds.), Sensation and measurements. Dordrecht, Holland: Reidel, 1974.
Zwislocki, J. J. Group and individual relations between sensation magnitudes and their
numerical estimates. Perception and Psychophysics, 1983, 33, 460–468.
Zwislocki, J. J. Natural measurement. In S. J. Bolanowski, Jr. & G. A. Gescheider (Eds.),
Ratio scaling of psychological magnitude. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,
1991.
Zwislocki, J. J. , & Goodman, D. A. Absolute scaling and sensory magnitudes: A validation.
Perception and Psychophysics, 1980, 28, 28–38.
Zwislocki, J. J. , & Jordan, H. N. On the relations of intensity jnd’s to loudness and neural
noise. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1986, 79, 772–780.
Zwislocki, J. J. , Ketkar, I. , Cannon, M. W. , & Nodar, R. H. Loudness in enhancement and
summation in pairs of short sound bursts. Perception and Psychophysics, 1974, 16, 91–95.
Zwislocki, J. , Maire, F. , Feldman, A. S. , & Rubin, H. On the effect of practice and
motivation on the threshold of audibility. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1957,
30, 254–262.
Zwislocki, J. J. , & Sokolich, W. G. On loudness enhancement of a tone burst by preceding
tone burst. Perception and Psychophysics, 1974, 16, 87–90.