Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41991818›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2026

A multidimensional-scaling study of images from diverse everyday-object categories.

Robert M Nosofsky, Adam F Osth

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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

2 authors.

Robert M NosofskyDepartment of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Indiana University, 1101 E. Tenth Street, Bloomington, IN, 47405, USA. nosofsky@iu.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2494-2719
Adam F OsthMelbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia.

Funding

Australian Research Council DP240101264
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We propose and implement an approach for deriving multidimensional scaling (MDS) solutions for objects from diverse everyday-object categories. The goal is for the MDS solutions to capture relative similarities between pairs of objects both within and across the categories. For example, if the members of the category apples are more similar to one another than are the members of the category lamps, then the MDS solution for the apples will be more compressed overall than the MDS solution for lamps. To achieve this goal, the key idea is that, rather than collecting similarity-judgment data one category at a time, we alternate in random fashion across trials the category from which the similarity-judgment data are collected. We hypothesize that if similarity-judgment data are collected one category at a time, observers may recalibrate their judgment scale with respect to each individual category, which could cause loss of information of overall discriminability relations across the different categories. By using the alternating-category approach, observers may be able to maintain a more nearly constant judgment scale across the different categories. We combine the alternating-category procedure with the use of metric forms of MDS that produce MDS solutions in which differences in overall discriminability relations across categories are maintained. We provide preliminary evidence of the success of the approach by showing that, when used as input to a simple computational model of recognition memory, the derived MDS solutions predict reasonably well the false-alarm rates associated with the different categories observed in an old-new recognition experiment.

Indexed as

Multidimensional Scaling AnalysisHumansJudgmentEveryday-object categoriesMultidimensional scalingOld–new recognitionSimilarity

Identifiers

PMID41991818
PMCPMC13086887

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.