Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-8r8nv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T09:34:16.955Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reconstructing Distances among Objects from their Discriminability

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2025

Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov  and
Hans Colonius
Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov*
Affiliation:
Purdue University and Swedish Collegium for Advanced Studies in Social Sciences
Hans Colonius
Affiliation:
Oldenburg University
*
Request for reprints should be sent to Ehtibar N. Dzhafarov, Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, 703 Third Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2081, USA. E-mail: ehtibar@purdue.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We describe a principled way of imposing a metric representing dissimilarities on any discrete set of stimuli (symbols, handwritings, consumer products, X-ray films, etc.), given the probabilities with which they are discriminated from each other by a perceiving system, such as an organism, person, group of experts, neuronal structure, technical device, or even an abstract computational algorithm. In this procedure one does not have to assume that discrimination probabilities are monotonically related to distances, or that the distances belong to a predefined class of metrics, such as Minkowski. Discrimination probabilities do not have to be symmetric, the probability of discriminating an object from itself need not be a constant, and discrimination probabilities are allowed to be 0’s and 1’s. The only requirement that has to be satisfied is Regular Minimality, a principle we consider the defining property of discrimination: for ordered stimulus pairs (a, b), b is least frequently discriminated from a if and only if a is least frequently discriminated from b. Regular Minimality generalizes one of the weak consequences of the assumption that discrimination probabilities are monotonically related to distances: the probability of discriminating a from a should be less than that of discriminating a from any other object. This special form of Regular Minimality also underlies such traditional analyses of discrimination probabilities as Multidimensional Scaling and Cluster Analysis.

Keywords

continuous stimulus spacediscrete stimulus spacediscriminationFechnerian Scaling of Discrete Object Sets (FSDOS)Multidimensional Fechnerian Scaling (MDFS)Nonconstant Self-DissimilarityRegular Minimalitypsychometric functionsame-different judgmentssubjective distance

Information

Type
Original Paper
Information
Psychometrika , Volume 71 , Issue 2 , June 2006 , pp. 365 - 386
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 The Psychometric Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

This research was supported by the NSF grant SES 0318010 (E.D.), Humboldt Research Award (E.D.), Humboldt Foundation grant DEU/1038348 (H.C. & E.D.), and DFG grant Co 94/5 (H.C.).

References

Borg, I., & Groenen, P. (1997). Modern multidimensional scaling. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
DeSarbo, W.S., Johnson, M.D., Manrai, A.K., Manrai, L.A., & Edwards, E. A. (1992). TSCALE: A new multidimensional scaling procedure based on Tversky's contrast model. Psychometrika, 57, 43–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dzhafarov, E.N. (2002a). Multidimensional Fechnerian scaling: Regular variation version. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 46, 226–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dzhafarov, E.N. (2002b). Multidimensional Fechnerian scaling: Probability-distance hypothesis. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 46, 352–374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dzhafarov, E.N. (2002c). Multidimensional Fechnerian scaling: Perceptual separability. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 46, 564–582.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dzhafarov, E.N. (2002d). Multidimensional Fechnerian scaling: Pairwise comparisons, regular minimality, and nonconstant self-similarity. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 46, 583–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dzhafarov, E.N. (2003a). Thurstonian-type representations for “same—different” discriminations: Deterministic decisions and independent images. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 47, 208–228.Google Scholar
Dzhafarov, E.N. (2003b). Thurstonian-type representations for “same—different” discriminations: Probabilistic decisions and interdependent images. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 47, 229–243.Google Scholar
Dzhafarov, E.N., & Colonius, H. (1999). Fechnerian metrics in unidimensional and multidimensional stimulus spaces. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 6, 239–268.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dzhafarov, E.N., & Colonius, H. (2001). Multidimensional Fechnerian scaling: Basics. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 45, 670–719.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dzhafarov, E.N., & Colonius, H. (2005a). Psychophysics without physics: A purely psychological theory of Fechnerian scaling in continuous stimulus spaces. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 49, 1–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dzhafarov, E.N., & Colonius, H. (2005b). Psychophysics without physics: Extension of Fechnerian scaling from continuous to discrete and discrete-continuous stimulus spaces. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 49, 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fechner, G.T. (1860). Elemente der Psychophysik Elements of psychophysics. Leipzig: Breitkopf & Härtel.Google Scholar
Indow, T. (1998). Parallel shift of judgment-characteristic curves according to the context in cutaneous and color discrimination. In Dowling, C.E., Roberts, F.S., & Theuns, P. (Eds.), Recent progress in mathematical psychology (pp. 47–63). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Indow, T., Robertson, A.R., von Grunau, M., & Fielder, G.H. (1992). Discrimination ellipsoids of aperture and simulated surface colors by matching and paired comparison. Color Research and Applications, 17, 6–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Izmailov, Ch. A., Dzhafarov, E.N., & Zimachev, M.M. (2001). Luminance discrimination probabilities derived from the frog electroretinogram. In Sommerfeld, E., Kompass, R., & Lachmann, T. (Eds.), Fechner Day 2001 (pp. 206–211). Lengerich: Pabst Science.Google Scholar
Krumhansl, C.L. (1978). Concerning the applicability of geometric models to similarity data: The interrelationship between similarity and spatial density. Psychological Review, 85, 445–463.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kruskal, J.B., & Wish, M. (1978). Multidimensional scaling. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothkopf, E.Z. (1957). A measure of stimulus similarity and errors in some paired-associate learning tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 94–102.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roweis, S.T., & Saul, L.K. (2000). Nonlinear dimensionality reduction by locally linear embedding. Science, 290, 2323–2326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sankoff, D., & Kruskal, J. (1999). Time warps, string edits, and macromolecules. Stanford, CA: CSLI.Google Scholar
Shepard, R.N. (1957). Stimulus and response generalization: A stochastic model relating generalization to distance in psychological space. Psychometrika, 22, 325–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R.N. (1958). Stimulus and response generalization: Tests of a model relating generalization to distance in psychological space. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55, 509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shepard, R.N., & Carroll, J.D. (1966). Parametric representation of nonlinear data structures. In Krishnaiah, P. R. (Eds.), Multivariate analysis (pp. 561–592). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Tenenbaum, J.B., de Silva, V., & Langford, J.C. (2000). A global geometric framework for nonlinear dimensionality reduction. Science, 290, 2319–2323.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Thurstone, L.L. (1927). A law of comparative judgments. Psychological Review, 34, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327–352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weeks, D.G., & Bentler, P.M. (1982). Restricted multidimensional scaling models for asymmetric proximities. Psychometrika, 47, 201–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wish, M. (1967). A model for the perception of Morse code-like signals. Human Factors, 9, 529–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zimmer, K., & Colonius, H. (2000). Testing a new theory of Fechnerian scaling: The case of auditory intensity discrimination. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 108, 2596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar