Abstract
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.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
ATKINSON, R. C., & KINCHLA, R. A. A learning model for forced-choice detection experiments, British Journal of Mathematical & Statistical Psychology, 1965, 18, 183–206.
BROWN, D. R., & ANDREWS, M. H. Visual form discrimination: Multidimensional analyses. Perception & Psychophysics, 1968, 3, 401–406.
BUSH, R. R. Estimation and evaluation, In R. D. Lucc, R. R. Bush, and E. Galanter (Eds.),Handbook of mathematical psychology. Vol. 1. New York: Wiley, 1963, Pp. 429–469.
CERNOG, U. Y., & Rose, F. C. (Eds.),Legibility of alphanumeric characters and other symbols. II. A reference handbook. Washington. D.C: National Bureau of Standards Miscellaneous 262-2, 1967.
ESTES, W. K., & Wessel, D. L. Reaction time in relation to display size and correciness of response in forced-choice visual signal detection. Perception & Psychophysics, 1966, 1, 369–373.
HYMAN, R., & WELL, A. Judgments of similarity and spatial models. Perception & Psychophysics, 1967, 2,233–2488.
KINCHLA, R. A., TOWNSEND, J. T., YELLOTT, J. I., & ATKINSON, R. C. Influence of correlated visual cues on auditory signal detection. Perception & Psychophysics, 1966, 1, 67–73.
KLAHR, U. A Monte Carlo investigation of the statistical significance of Kruskul’s nonmetric scaling procedure. Psychometrika, 1969, 34, 319–330.
KRANTZ, D. H. Threshold theories of signal detection. Psychological Review, 1969, 76, 308–324.
KRUSKAL, J. B. Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness-of-fit to a nonmetric hypothesis, Psychometrika. 1964a, 29, 1–28.
KRUSKAL, J. B. Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method. Psychometrika, 1964b, 29, 115–130.
KÜNNAPAS, T. Visual perception of capital letters. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1966, 7, 189–196.
LUCE, R. D.Individual choice behavior. New York: Wiley. 1959.
LUCE, R. D. Detection and recognition. In R. D. Luce, R. R. Bush, and L. Galanter (Eds.),Handbook of mathematical psychotogy, Vol. 1. New York: Wiley, 1963a. Pp. 103–189.
LUCE, R. D. A threshold model tor simple detection experiments. Psychological Review. 1963b, 70, 61–79.
NAKATANI, L. H. A confusion-choice stimulus recognition model applied to word recognition. Technical Report No. 31. 1968, Human Communication Laboratory. University of California. Los Angeles.
SHEPARD, R. N. Stimulus and response generalization: Deduction of the generalization quotient from a trace model. Psychological Review. 1958, 65, 242–256.
SHEPARD, R. N. The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function: I. Psychometrika. 1962a, 27, 125–140.
SHEPARD, R. N. The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function: II. Psychometrika, 1962b, 27, 219–246.
SHEPARD, R. N. Attention and the metric structure of the stimulus. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1964, 1, 54–87.
SMITH, K. MODELS of confusion, Paper delivered to Psychonomic Socicety, St. Louis, 1968.
TORGERSON, W. S.Methods of scaling. New York: Wiley. 1958.
TOWNSEND, J. T. Choice behavior in a cued-recognition task. Technical Report No. 103, 1966, Institute for Mathematical Studies in the Social Sciences, Stanford University.
WICKELGREN, W. A. Testing two-state theories with operating characteristics and a posteriori probabilities. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 69, 126–131.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
The data were gathered and part of the analysis of this study was accomplished at the Univerxity of Hawaii with the aid of a University of Hawaii intramural research grant.
An erratum to this article is available at http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BF03212817.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Townsend, J.T. Theoretical analysis of an alphabetic confusion matrix. Perception & Psychophysics 9, 40–50 (1971). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213026
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213026