ArticleProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America2024
A unified framework for perceived magnitude and discriminability of sensory stimuli.
Article in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Psychometric functions for temporal discrimination: Duration or log duration?Behavior research methods · 2026Article
- Clarifying the conceptual dimensions of representation in neuroscience.Nature reviews. Neuroscience · 2026Review
- Endogenous precision of the number sense.eLife · 2026Article
- The time-intensity uncertainty principle in vision.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2026Article
- Bayesian estimation yields anti-Weber variability.PNAS nexus · 2025Article
- Estimating the contribution of early and late noise in vision from psychophysical data.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- A comparative analysis of perceptual noise in lateral and depth motion: Evidence from eye tracking.Journal of vision · 2025Article
- Article
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
The perception of sensory attributes is often quantified through measurements of sensitivity (the ability to detect small stimulus changes), as well as through direct judgments of appearance or intensity. Despite their ubiquity, the relationship between these two measurements remains controversial and unresolved. Here, we propose a framework in which they arise from different aspects of a common representation. Specifically, we assume that judgments of stimulus intensity (e.g., as measured through rating scales) reflect the mean value of an internal representation, and sensitivity reflects a combination of mean value and noise properties, as quantified by the statistical measure of Fisher information. Unique identification of these internal representation properties can be achieved by combining measurements of sensitivity and judgments of intensity. As a central example, we show that Weber's law of perceptual sensitivity can coexist with Stevens' power-law scaling of intensity ratings (for all exponents), when the noise amplitude increases in proportion to the representational mean. We then extend this result beyond the Weber's law range by incorporating a more general and physiology-inspired form of noise and show that the combination of noise properties and sensitivity measurements accurately predicts intensity ratings across a variety of sensory modalities and attributes. Our framework unifies two primary perceptual measurements-thresholds for sensitivity and rating scales for intensity-and provides a neural interpretation for the underlying representation.
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.