Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37873008›Full record

ArticleArXiv2025

Ordinal Characterization of Similarity Judgments.

Jonathan D Victor, Guillermo Aguilar, Suniyya A Waraich

Abstract readPreprint
In one paragraph

Article in ArXiv, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

  • Updated by
5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jonathan D VictorWeill Cornell Medical College.
Guillermo AguilarTechnische Universität Berlin.
Suniyya A WaraichUniversity of California - Davis.

Funding

CENTRAL PROCESSING OF VISUAL INFORMATIONR01EY007977 · NEI · WEILL MEDICAL COLL OF CORNELL UNIV · PI Jonathan D Victor · 1989 to 2026
$9.0M
NEI NIH HHS R01 EY007977
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Characterizing judgments of similarity within a perceptual or semantic domain, and making inferences about the underlying structure of this domain from these judgments, has an increasingly important role in cognitive and systems neuroscience. We present a new framework for this purpose that makes limited assumptions about how perceptual distances are converted into similarity judgments. The approach starts from a dataset of empirical judgments of relative similarities: the fraction of times that a subject chooses one of two comparison stimuli to be more similar to a reference stimulus. These empirical judgments provide Bayesian estimates of underling choice probabilities. From these estimates, we derive indices that characterize the set of judgments in three ways: compatibility with a symmetric dis-similarity, compatibility with an ultrametric space, and compatibility with an additive tree. Each of the indices is derived from rank-order relationships among the choice probabilities that, as we show, are necessary and sufficient for local consistency with the three respective characteristics. We illustrate this approach with simulations and example psychophysical datasets of dis-similarity judgments in several visual domains and provide code that implements the analyses at https://github.com/jvlab/simrank.

Indexed as

51-0862P1591E3092-0892-10additive treesmaximum likelihood estimationmultidimensional scalingperceptual spacestriadsultrametric space

Identifiers

PMID37873008
PMCPMC10593068

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.