Abstract
This report compares three feature list sets for capital letters, previously proposed by different investigators, on the ability of each to predict empirical confusion matrices. Toward this end, several variants of assumed information processes in recognition were also compared. The best model incorporated: (1) variable feature retrieval probabilities, (2) a goodness-of-match lower threshold below which guessing determines response, and (3) response bias on guessing trials. This model, when combined with one particular proposed feature list set, produced stress values of less than 9% in comparisons to empirical matrices for each of three different Ss. The feature retrieval probability vectors associated with these minimum-stress predictions were highly correlated (\(\bar r = .83\)), suggesting considerable generality of process and feature sets between Ss.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Frijda, N. H. Simulation of human long-term memory. Psychological Bulletin, 1972,77, 1–31.
Geyer, L. H. A two channel theory of short term visual storage. (Doctoral dissertation, SUNY at Buffalo) Buffalo, N.Y: University Microfilms, 1970. No. 71-7165.
Gibson, E. J.Principles of perceptual learning and development. New York: Meredith, 1969.
Gibson, E. J., Gibson, J. J., Pick, A. D., & Osser, H. A developmental study of the discrimination of letter-like forms. Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 1962,55, 897–908.
Gibson, E. J., Osser, H., Schiff, W., & Smith, J. An analysis of critical features of letters, tested by a confusion matrix. In: A basic research program on reading. Cooperative Research Project No. 639, U.S. Office of Education, 1963.
Hubel, D. H., & Wiesel, T. N. Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional- architecture in the cat’s visual cortex. Journal of Physiology, 1962,160, 106–154.
Laughery, K. R. Computer simulation of short-term memory: A component decay model. In G. T. Bower and J. T. Spent. (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory. Vol VI. New York: Academic Press, 1971.
Maturana, H. R., Lettvin, J. Y., McCulloch, W. S., & Pitts, W. H. Anatomy and physiology of vision in the frog (Rana pipiens). Journal of General Physiology, 1960,43, 129–175.
Neisser, U.Cognitive psychology. New York: Meredith, 1967.
Piaget, J., & Inhelder, B.The child’s conception of space. New York: Humanities Press, 1956.
Pritchard, R. M., Heron, W., & Hebb, D. O. Visual perception approached by the method of stabilized images. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1960,14, 67–77.
Selftidge, O. G. Pandemonium: A paradigm for learning. InThe mechanization of th6ught processes. London: H.M. Stationary Office, 1959.
Sperling, G. The information available in brief visual presentations. Psychological Monograph, 1960, 74, No. 11.
Sperling, G., Budiansky, J., Spivak, J. F., & Johnson, M. C. Extremely rapid visual search: The maximum rate of scanning letters for the presence of a numeral. Science, 1971,174, 307–311.
Townsend, J. T. Alphabetic confusion: A test of models for individuals. Perception & Psychophysics, 1971a,9, 449–454.
Townsend, J. T. Theoretical analysis of an alphabetic confusion matrix. Perception & Psychophysics, 1971b,9, 40–50.
Yonas, A., & Gibson, E. J. A developmental study of feature-processing strategies in letter discrimination. Paper presented at the Eastern Psychological Association, Boston,
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
We axe grateful to J. T. Townsend for his commentary upon an earlier draft and to I. Pollack for helpful editorial guidance.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Geyer, L.H., DeWald, C.G. Feature lists and confusion matrices. Perception & Psychophysics 14, 471–482 (1973). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211185
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211185