On the “absoluteness” of category and magnitude scales of pain

The concept of “absolute scaling” (Zwislocki & Goodman, 1980) implies that direct judgments of sensory magnitude not only reflect the relative positions of the stimuli being judged, but also permit us to assess level differences in sensation. In order to explore this notion for different scaling methods, in the present investigation we compared magnitude estimation with category partitioning, a verbally anchored categorization procedure, in scaling painful pressure stimuli covering different intensity ranges. The results indicate that when the same stimulus range was presented after 1 week, both methods appeared to be highly reliable, with category partitioning faring somewhat better than magnitude estimation. When the stimulus range was unobtrusively changed between sessions, both methods reflected the within-subjects shift in absolute level. When two different sets of subjects judged the slightly different stimulus ranges, both methods resulted in scale values consistent with absolute scaling, though only category partitioning was sensitive enough to differentiate the two stimulus ranges. The results are discussed in the context of different possibilities of anchoring direct scaling methods in order to obtain “absolute” level information.

[1]  B. Zoeke,et al.  A Comparison of “Frame of Reference” Paradigms in Human and Animal Psychophysics , 1983 .

[2]  H. Göbel,et al.  [The correspondence between pain stimulus and pain sensation.]. , 1988, Schmerz.

[3]  B. Mellers Reply to Zwislocki’s views on “absolute” scaling , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  Lawrence E. Marks,et al.  Magnitude-matching: the measurement of taste and smell , 1988 .

[5]  R. Dubner,et al.  Validity and sensitivity of ratio scales of sensory and affective verbal pain descriptors: Manipulation of affect by diazepam , 1978, Pain.

[6]  H. Helson Adaptation-level theory : an experimental and systematic approach to behavior , 1964 .

[7]  Remembrance of sounds past: memory and psychophysical scaling. , 1987 .

[8]  L E Marks,et al.  On the cross-modal perception of intensity. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  J. Zwislocki Absolute and other scales: Question of validity , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  S. S. Stevens The direct estimation of sensory magnitudes-loudness. , 1956, The American journal of psychology.

[11]  A A Collins,et al.  The measurement of loudness in individual children and adults by absolute magnitude estimation and cross-modality matching. , 1989, The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.

[12]  J. Zwislocki,et al.  Absolute scaling of sensory magnitudes: A validation , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[13]  L E Marks,et al.  Magnitude estimation and sensory matching , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  B. Mellers Evidence against “absolute” scaling , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  L E Marks,et al.  Cross-modality matching functions generated by magnitude estimation , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[16]  Allen Parducci,et al.  Category rating scales: Effects of relative spacing and frequency , 1971 .

[17]  G. Borg Physical performance and perceived exertion , 1962 .

[18]  A. Parducci Category judgment: a range-frequency model. , 1965, Psychological review.

[19]  S. S. Stevens,et al.  Psychophysics: Introduction to Its Perceptual, Neural and Social Prospects , 1975 .

[20]  Jozef J. Zwislocki,et al.  Monaural Loudness Function at 1000 cps and Interaural Summation , 1963 .

[21]  Lawrence E. Marks,et al.  Sensory Processes: The new Psychophysics , 1975 .

[22]  O. Heller,et al.  Hörfeldaudiometrie mit dem Verfahren der Kategorienunterteilung (KU) , 1985 .