Table Of ContentINFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1.The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image of the page in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.
Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
LD3907 13-2214-1 s
1950 Karlin, Lawrence, 1917” '
0K27 The time-error for size comparison
as a function of stimulus duration
and interpolated interval. New Y>
1950.
[2],127 typewritten leaves, diag:
tables. 29cm. C58S41
Thesis (Ph.D.) - New York Univer
sity, Graduate School, 19i>0*
"References": p.1211-127*
«Cholf I ict
Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED.
lIBBARr 09
BEN 1091 UNIVSR8IT7
HlflRSITT HEIOHTP .V
~r v
THE TIME-ERROR FOR SIZE COMPARISON AS A FUNCTION OF
STIMULUS DURATION AND INTERPOLATED INTERVAL
by
Lawrence Karlin
A dissertation In the department of psychology submitted
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
of Doctor of Philosophy at New York University, April, 1950*
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The writer wishes to express his sincere thanks And to
acknowledge a profound debt to Professor Lyle H. Lanier for
his guidance, advioe and criticism in carrying out this study.
He also wishes to express his appreciation to Professors
Thomas N. Jenkins and Presley D. Stout for valuable suggestions.
TABLE 07 CONTENTS
I. Iatrodnatloa
II. Oaaaral Baokoround..........................5
Trtti Thaory............................ 5
ErtanalTa Stlaull and Traea Thaory........8
Stimulus Duration...................... 10
Praatiea Sffsata ....................... 11
Csntral Tandanay and Balatad Effacto .....14
Tiaa-arror Studlaa of Tlaual Extant...... 19
Tfcaoratlaal Considaratloaa.............. «7
Suaaary .... ..55
III. Outllna of tha Praaaut study .......... 57
IT. Apparatus aad Oaaaral Proaadura............ SO
Prajaatloa 8yataa...................... SO
Tlalao Syataa.......................... 40
Stlaalus Matarlala..................... 48
Oparatloa of Xqulpaant ........ 44
T. Naaulta........... 45
Xxparlaaat X ............... 45
Jtxparlaant XX .... 05
Exparlaaat XXX ......................... 78
Exparlaaat X T .......................... 04
Xxparlaaat T ........... ..97
IX. Dlsauaaloa................ 105
Thaoratiaal Interpretations ..........107
TII. Suaaary and Oonelnalona..................117
Suaaary.............................. 117
Qoaelualoaa.......................... 1S1
▼XII* Hafarenas*...............................ltd
I INTRODUCTION
The constant error resulting from the successive com
parison of two stimuli is usually described as a "time-error."
The sign of the time-error is positive or negative depending
on whether the second member of a pair is, respectively,
under- or overestimated when compared with the first member.
In experiments involving the successive comparison of
lifted weights, Pechner (9) found a negative time-error to
be the rule; i.e., a persistent tendency was displayed to
overestimate the second member of a pair. Assuming that the
judgments in this situation depended on a comparison of the
seoond stimulus with a "memory image" of the first, he attri
buted the negative time-error to the "fading" of the image
during the time interval between two successive presentations.
This fading memory-image provided the consistently lower
"level" against which the second stimulus was judged, with
the consequent overestimation of the second stimulus. Recog
nizing further that the time-error situation provided a method
for "fraotionating" the course of the memory image in time, he
experimented with varying time intervals Interpolated between
two successively presented stimuli. As he predicted, the time-
error became increasingly negative with increasing length of
interpolated interval.
In subsequent studies of the time-error these results
were verified and extended to Include other modalities such
2
as vision and audition. Although various theoretical in
terpretations have generally assumed some kind of "’fading"
after-effect, the concept of a "memory-image” as an embodi
ment of this after-effect has long since been discarded.
This was done mainly on the basis of introspective evidence
(10,26,28) which provided no phenomenal justification for
the role assigned to the memory image in the comparison
judgment.
Most time-error experiments have employed stimuli vary
ing in intensity (e.g., heaviness of weights, loudness of
sounds and brightness of lights), but a few recent studies
have investigated the time-error for the successive compari
son of stimuli varying in extent (e.g., the distances between
dots /6,4l7, lengths of lines /25,277, areas of circles and
[jj&J)
squares . The results ®f the latter group of studies
have not uniformly suggested the presence of a negative time-
error. The lack of uniformity of the results for stimuli
varying in size as compared to those obtained with extensive
stimuli, may be due to the possibility that each of the two
types of stimuli (intensive and extensive) involve comparison
judgments governed by different kinds of mechanisms. Thus,
although most explanations of the time-error assume that the
after-effect of intensities fade (diminish) in time, is it
equally reasonable to assume that the after-effects of ex
tensities (or sizes) fade also? In brief, how does the concept
of a fading after-effect apply to size comparisons; is "fading",
in the case of extensive stimuli equivalent to "shrinkage?"
Limited information is provided by the studies using
visual extents in that they did not investigate the time-
error for varying interpolated intervals but determined it
only for a single interval (eight seconds). It is not known,
therefore, whether the time-error for this kind of stimulus
varies systematically with changing interpolated interval*
The only conclusion that might be drawn at present is that,
for this kind of stimulus, there may not be a consistently
negative time-error at 8-seoond interpolated interval.
The "time-error function", as described in the experi
mental literature, usually refers to the real or assumed
relationship between the time-error and Interpolated inter
val. Further study of the experimental literature dealing
with the successive comparison of visual stimuli in a broader
context, suggested that stimulus duration might be another
important, if neglected, parameter of this kind of situation.
The possibility was suggested by the results of these studies
(£2,45) that the time-error might be a function of stimulus
duration as well as of Interpolated interval. Also of in
terest in this connection is the finding by Vada (44) that
time-errors for auditory intensities vary systematically with
1
stimulus duration. The results of this experiment suggest
that additional comparison could be made between extensive
l7 this article has not been translated from the original
Japanese. Information was obtained from an English abstract
and from inspection of the tables in the Japanese text.
4
and intensive stimuli in.terms of stimulus duration as well
as interpolated interval.
The present study is concerned with the question raised
by these considerations; namely, do time-error functions ex
ist for extensive magnitudes similar to those previously
found for intensive magnitudes? To answer this question, the
present study was designed to investigate the successive com
parison of the size of circles as a function of stimulus dura
tion and interpolated interval.
Further examination of the techniques and procedures
used in the studies of the time-error for visual size indicates
that the lack of consistency in the results may be partly due
to a failure to deal adequately with such factors as aontrol
of illumination, adaptation effects, practice effects and
modes of presenting stimuli (e.g., projection vs. direct,
background size, etc.). For this reason special considera
tion was given in the present study to the design of equip
ment and procedures in order to accomplish a greater measure
of control over these factors than has been achieved in
earlier studies.
