A COMPARISON OF SIMILARITY SPACE AND SEMANTIC SPACE OF RANDOM SHAPES

TADASHI KIKUCHI

doi:10.4992/psycholres1954.13.183

TADASHI KIKUCHI

著者情報

ジャーナルフリー

1971 年 13 巻 4 号 p. 183-191

DOI https://doi.org/10.4992/psycholres1954.13.183

詳細

Published: 1971 Received: 1971/12/13 Available on J-STAGE: 2009/02/24 Accepted: - Advance online publication: - Revised: -
訂正情報
訂正日: 2009/02/24 訂正理由: - 訂正箇所: 論文抄録訂正内容: Wrong : Two experiments were run for 25 randomly generated shapes varying in the number of turns. Similarity judgments, made by 36 undergraduate students, were scaled using nonmetric multidimensional scaling technique. As the results, 3 dimensions were obtained, representing dimensions of compactness, complexity, and symmetry. As a second experiment, judgments were made on 30 semantic differential scales by 40 undergraduate students. As the results of analysis, 3 factors were extracted, representing dimensions of activity, potency, and evaluation. These solutions were compared using canonical correlation method, which yielded only one significant relation between them. The total variance shared by the two spaces was only 22.1%.
Right : Two experiments were run for 25 randomly generated shapes varying in the number of turns. Similarity judgments, made by 36 undergraduate students, were scaled using non-metric multidimensional scaling technique. As the results, 3 dimensions were obtained, representing dimensions of compactness, complexity, and symmetry. As a second experiment, judgments were made on 30 semantic differential scales by 40 undergraduate students. As the results of analysis, 3 factors were extracted, representing dimensions of activity, potency, and evaluation. These solutions were compared using canonical correlation method, which yielded only one significant relation between them. The total variance shared by the two spaces was only 22.1%.

訂正日: 2009/02/24 訂正理由: - 訂正箇所: 引用文献情報訂正内容: Wrong : AIKEN, L. S., & BROWN, D. R. 1969a A spatial analysis of the discriminability of forms in noise. Percept. Psychophys., 5, 171-175.
AIKEN, L. S., & BROWN, D. R. 1969b Visual form perception: Congruence among spatial configuration. Percept. Psychophys., 5, 155-160.
AIKEN, L. S., & BROWN, D. R. 1969c Visual form perception: Task demands and congruence among spatial solution. Percept. Psychophys., 15, 219-220.
ATTNEAVE, F., & ARNOULT, M. D. 1965 The quantitative study of shape and pattern recognition. Psychol. Bull., 53, 221-227.
BEHRMAN, B. W., & BROWN, D. R. 1968 Multidimensional scaling of form: A psychophysical analysis. Percept. Psychophys., 4, 19-25.
BROWN, D. R., & ANDREWS, H. M. 1968 Visual form discrimination: Multidimensional analy sis. Percept. Psychophys., 3, 401-406.
ELLIOT, L. L., & TANNENBAUM, P. H. 1963 Factorstructure of semantic differential responses to visual forms and prediction of factor score from structural characteristics of stimulus shapes. Amer. J. Ps_ychol., 76, 589-597.
HYMAN, R., & WELL, A. 1967 Judgments of similarity and spatial models. Percept. Psychophys., 2, 233-248.
HYMAN, R., & WELL, A. 1968 Perceptual reparability and spatial models. Percept. Psychophys., 3, 161-165.
KRUSKAL, J. B. 1964a Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetrichypothesis. Psychometrika, 29, 1-27.
KRUSKAL, J. B. 1964b Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method. Psychometrika, 29, 115-129.
OYAMA, T., & HAGA, J. 1963 Common factors between figural and phonetic symbolism. Psychologia, 6, 131-144.
ROSS, R. T. 1934 Optimum order for the presentation of pairs in the method of paired comparison. J. educ. Psychol., 25, 375-382.
THOMAS, H. 1968 Spatial models and multidimensional scaling of random shapes. Amer., J Psychol., 81, 551-558.

Right : AIKEN, L. S., & BROWN, D. R. 1969a A spatial analysis of the discriminability of forms in noise. Percept. Psychophys., 5, 171-175.
AIKEN, L. S., & BROWN, D. R. 1969b Visual form perception: Congruence among spatial configuration. Percept. Psychophys., 5, 155-160.
AIKEN, L. S., & BROWN, D. R. 1969c Visual form perception: Task demands and congruence among spatial solution. Percept. Psychophys., 15, 219-220.
ATTNEAVE, F., & ARNOULT, M. D. 1965 The quantitative study of shape and pattern recognition. Psychol. Bull., 53, 221-227.
BEHRMAN, B. W., & BROWN, D. R. 1968 Multidimensional scaling of form: A psychophysical analysis. Percept. Psychophys., 4, 19-25.
BROWN, D. R., & ANDREWS, H. M. 1968 Visual form discrimination: Multidimensional analysis. Percept. Psychophys., 3, 401-406.
ELLIOT, L. L., & TANNENBAUM, P. H. 1963 Factor-structure of semantic differential responses to visual forms and prediction of factor score from structural characteristics of stimulus shapes. Amer. J. Psychol., 76, 589-597.
HYMAN, R., & WELL, A. 1967 Judgments of similarity and spatial models. Percept. Psychophys., 2, 233-248.
HYMAN, R., & WELL, A. 1968 Perceptual separability and spatial models. Percept. Psychophys., 3, 161-165.
KRUSKAL, J. B. 1964a Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29, 1-27.
KRUSKAL, J. B. 1964b Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method. Psychometrika, 29, 115-129.
OYAMA, T., & HAGA, J. 1963 Common factors between figural and phonetic symbolism. Psychologia, 6, 131-144.
Ross, R. T. 1934 Optimum order for the presentation of pairs in the method of paired comparison. J. educ. Psychol., 25, 375-382.
THOMAS, H. 1968 Spatial models and multidimensional scaling of random shapes. Amer. J. Psychol., 81, 551-558.

訂正日: 2009/02/24 訂正理由: - 訂正箇所: PDFファイル訂正内容: -

訂正日: 2009/02/24 訂正理由: - 訂正箇所: 引用文献情報訂正内容: Wrong : AIKEN, L. S., & BROWN, D. R. 1969a A spatial analysis of the discriminability of forms in noise. Percept. Psychophys., 5, 171-175.
AIKEN, L. S., & BROWN, D. R. 1969b Visual form perception: Congruence among spatial configuration. Percept. Psychophys., 5, 155-160.
AIKEN, L. S., & BROWN, D. R. 1969c Visual form perception: Task demands and congruence among spatial solution. Percept. Psychophys., 15, 219-220.
ATTNEAVE, F., & ARNOULT, M. D. 1965 The quantitative study of shape and pattern recognition. Psychol. Bull., 53, 221-227.
BEHRMAN, B. W., & BROWN, D. R. 1968 Multidimensional scaling of form: A psychophysical analysis. Percept. Psychophys., 4, 19-25.
BROWN, D. R., & ANDREWS, H. M. 1968 Visual form discrimination: Multidimensional analysis. Percept. Psychophys., 3, 401-406.
ELLIOT, L. L., & TANNENBAUM, P. H. 1963 Factor-structure of semantic differential responses to visual forms and prediction of factor score from structural characteristics of stimulus shapes. Amer. J. Psychol., 76, 589-597.
HYMAN, R., & WELL, A. 1967 Judgments of similarity and spatial models. Percept. Psychophys., 2, 233-248.
HYMAN, R., & WELL, A. 1968 Perceptual separability and spatial models. Percept. Psychophys., 3, 161-165.
KRUSKAL, J. B. 1964a Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29, 1-27.
KRUSKAL, J. B. 1964b Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method. Psychometrika, 29, 115-129.
OYAMA, T., & HAGA, J. 1963 Common factors between figural and phonetic symbolism. Psychologia, 6, 131-144.
Ross, R. T. 1934 Optimum order for the presentation of pairs in the method of paired comparison. J. educ. Psychol., 25, 375-382.
THOMAS, H. 1968 Spatial models and multidimensional scaling of random shapes. Amer. J. Psychol., 81, 551-558.

Right : AIKEN, L. S., & BROWN, D. R. 1969a A spatial analysis of the discriminability of forms in noise. Percept. Psychophys., 5, 171-175.
AIKEN, L. S., & BROWN, D. R. 1969b Visual form perception: Congruence among spatial configuration. Percept. Psychophys., 5, 155-160.
AIKEN, L. S., & BROWN, D. R. 1969c Visual form perception: Task demands and congruence among spatial solution. Percept. Psychophys., 15, 219-220.
ATTNEAVE, F., & ARNOULT, M. D. 1965 The quantitative study of shape and pattern recognition. Psychol. Bull., 53, 221-227.
BEHRMAN, B. W., & BROWN, D. R. 1968 Multidimensional scaling of form: A psychophysical analysis. Percept. Psychophys., 4, 19-25.
BROWN, D. R., & ANDREWS, H. M. 1968 Visual form discrimination: Multidimensional analysis. Percept. Psychophys., 3, 401-406.
ELLIOT, L. L., & TANNENBAUM, P. H. 1963 Factor-structure of semantic differential responses to visual forms and prediction of factor score from structural characteristics of stimulus shapes. Amer. J. Psychol., 76, 589-597.
HYMAN, R., & WELL, A. 1967 Judgments of similarity and spatial models. Percept. Psychophys., 2, 233-248.
HYMAN, R., & WELL, A. 1968 Perceptual separability and spatial models. Percept. Psychophys., 3, 161-165.
KRUSKAL, J. B. 1964a Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis. Psychometrika, 29, 1-27.
KRUSKAL, J. B. 1964b Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: A numerical method. Psychometrika, 29, 115-129.
OYAMA, T., & HAGA, J. 1963 Common factors between figural and phonetic symbolism. Psychologia, 6, 131-144.
ROSS, R. T. 1934 Optimum order for the presentation of pairs in the method of paired comparison. J. educ. Psychol., 25, 375-382.
THOMAS, H. 1968 Spatial models and multidimensional scaling of random shapes. Amer. J. Psychol., 81, 551-558.

抄録

Two experiments were run for 25 randomly generated shapes varying in the number of turns. Similarity judgments, made by 36 undergraduate students, were scaled using non-metric multidimensional scaling technique. As the results, 3 dimensions were obtained, representing dimensions of compactness, complexity, and symmetry. As a second experiment, judgments were made on 30 semantic differential scales by 40 undergraduate students. As the results of analysis, 3 factors were extracted, representing dimensions of activity, potency, and evaluation. These solutions were compared using canonical correlation method, which yielded only one significant relation between them. The total variance shared by the two spaces was only 22.1%.

責任著者(Corresponding author)

訂正情報

J-STAGEへの登録はこちら（無料）