Theoretical analysis of an alphabetic confusion matrix

A study was undertaken to acquire a confusion matrix of the entire upper-case English alphabet with a simple nonserifed font under tachistoscopic conditions. This was accomplished with two experimental conditions, one with blank poststimulus field and one with noisy poststimulus field, for six Ss run 650 trials each. Three mathematical models of recognition, two based on the concept of a finite number of sensory states and one being the choice model, were compared in their ability to predict the confusion matrix after their parameters were estimated from functions of the data. In order to ascertain the facility with which estimates of similarity among the letters could lead to a psychological space containing the letters, ηij, the similarity parameter of the choice model was input to an ordinally based multidimensional scaling program. Finally, correlation coefficients were computed among parameters of the models, the scaled space, and a crude measure of physical similarity. Briefly, the results were: (1) the finite-state model that assumed stimulus similarity (the overlap activation model) and the choice model predicted the confusion-matrix entries about equally well in terms of a sum-of-squared deviations criterion and better than the all-or-none activation model, which assumed only a perfect perception or random-guessing state following a stimulus presentation; (2) the parts of the confusion matrix that fit best varied with the particular model, and this finding was related to the models; (3) the best scaling result in terms of a goodness-of-fit measure was obtained with the blank poststimulus field condition, with a technique allowing different distances for tied similarity values, and with the Euclidean as opposed to the city-block metric; and (4) there was agreement among the models in terms of the way in which the models reflected sensory and response bias structure in the data, and in the way in which a single model measured these attributes across experimental conditions, as well as agreement among similarity ami distance measures with physical Similarity.

[1]  R. Shepard Stimulus and response generalization: deduction of the generalization gradient from a trace model. , 1958, Psychological review.

[2]  R. Duncan Luce,et al.  Individual Choice Behavior , 1959 .

[3]  R. Shepard The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. II , 1962 .

[4]  R. Luce,et al.  A threshold theory for simple detection experiments. , 1963, Psychological review.

[5]  R. Shepard Attention and the metric structure of the stimulus space. , 1964 .

[6]  J. Kruskal Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method , 1964 .

[7]  J. Kruskal Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis , 1964 .

[8]  Richard C. Atkinson,et al.  A LEARNING MODEL FOR FORCED-CHOICE DETECTION EXPERIMENTS1 , 1965 .

[9]  T. Künnapas,et al.  Visual perception of capital letters. Multidimensional ratio scaling and multidimensional similarity. , 1966, Scandinavian journal of psychology.

[10]  Richard C. Atkinson,et al.  Influence of correlated visual cues on auditory signal detection , 1966 .

[11]  William K. Estes,et al.  Reaction time in relation to display size and correctness of response in forced-choice visual signal detection , 1966 .

[12]  R. Hyman,et al.  Judgments of similarity and spatial models , 1967 .

[13]  W A Wickelgren,et al.  Testing two-state theories with operating characteristics and a posteriori probabilities. , 1968, Psychological bulletin.

[14]  D. R. Brown,et al.  Visual form discrimination: Multidimensional analyses , 1968 .

[15]  David Klahr,et al.  A monte carlo investigation of the statistical significance of Kruskal's nonmetric scaling procedure , 1969 .

[16]  D H Krantz,et al.  Threshold theories of signal detection. , 1969, Psychological review.