Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32955551›Full record

ArticleJournal of vision2020

Estimation of perceptual scales using ordinal embedding.

Siavash Haghiri, Felix A Wichmann, Ulrike von Luxburg

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Measuring the intensity of emotions.Frontiers in psychology · 2024
    Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Siavash HaghiriDepartment of Computer Science, University of Tübingen, Germany.
Felix A WichmannDepartment of Computer Science, University of Tübingen, Germany.
Ulrike von LuxburgDepartment of Computer Science, University of Tübingen, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

HumansJudgmentPsychophysicsVisual Perception

Identifiers

PMID32955551
PMCPMC7533746

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.