ArticleJournal of vision2020
Estimation of perceptual scales using ordinal embedding.
Article in Journal of vision, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed.
- Material fictions: Comparing physically based renderings and generative AI images through material perception.Journal of vision · 2026Article
- Synthesis and perceptual scaling of high-resolution naturalistic images using Stable Diffusion.Behavior research methods · 2025Article
- Perceptual dimensions of wood materials.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- An objective measurement approach to quantify the perceived distortions of spectacle lenses.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Measuring the intensity of emotions.Frontiers in psychology · 2024Article
- Estimating the perceived dimension of psychophysical stimuli using triplet accuracy and hypothesis testing.Journal of vision · 2022Article
- Conjoint measurement of perceived transparency and perceived contrast in variegated checkerboards.Journal of vision · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In this article, we address the problem of measuring and analyzing sensation, the subjective magnitude of one's experience. We do this in the context of the method of triads: The sensation of the stimulus is evaluated via relative judgments of the following form: "Is stimulus \(S_i\) more similar to stimulus \(S_j\) or to stimulus \(S_k\)?" We propose to use ordinal embedding methods from machine learning to estimate the scaling function from the relative judgments. We review two relevant and well-known methods in psychophysics that are partially applicable in our setting: nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMDS) and the method of maximum likelihood difference scaling (MLDS). Considering various scaling functions, we perform an extensive set of simulations to demonstrate the performance of the ordinal embedding methods. We show that in contrast to existing approaches, our ordinal embedding approach allows, first, to obtain reasonable scaling functions from comparatively few relative judgments and, second, to estimate multidimensional perceptual scales. In addition to the simulations, we analyze data from two real psychophysics experiments using ordinal embedding methods. Our results show that in the one-dimensional perceptual scale, our ordinal embedding approach works as well as MLDS, while in higher dimensions, only our ordinal embedding methods can produce a desirable scaling function. To make our methods widely accessible, we provide an R-implementation and general rules of thumb on how to use ordinal embedding in the context of psychophysics.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.