A subscription to JoVE is required to view this content. Sign in or start your free trial.
The protocol presents an experimental psychophysics paradigm to obtain large quantities of similarity judgments, and an accompanying analysis workflow. The paradigm probes context effects and enables modeling of similarity data in terms of Euclidean spaces of at least five dimensions.
Similarity judgments are commonly used to study mental representations and their neural correlates. This approach has been used to characterize perceptual spaces in many domains: colors, objects, images, words, and sounds. Ideally, one might want to compare estimates of perceived similarity between all pairs of stimuli, but this is often impractical. For example, if one asks a subject to compare the similarity of two items with the similarity of two other items, the number of comparisons grows with the fourth power of the stimulus set size. An alternative strategy is to ask a subject to rate similarities of isolated pairs, e.g., on a Likert scale. This is much more efficient (the number of ratings grows quadratically with set size rather than quartically), but these ratings tend to be unstable and have limited resolution, and the approach also assumes that there are no context effects.
Here, a novel ranking paradigm for efficient collection of similarity judgments is presented, along with an analysis pipeline (software provided) that tests whether Euclidean distance models account for the data. Typical trials consist of eight stimuli around a central reference stimulus: the subject ranks stimuli in order of their similarity to the reference. By judicious selection of combinations of stimuli used in each trial, the approach has internal controls for consistency and context effects. The approach was validated for stimuli drawn from Euclidean spaces of up to five dimensions.
The approach is illustrated with an experiment measuring similarities among 37 words. Each trial yields the results of 28 pairwise comparisons of the form, "Was A more similar to the reference than B was to the reference?" While directly comparing all pairs of pairs of stimuli would have required 221445 trials, this design enables reconstruction of the perceptual space from 5994 such comparisons obtained from 222 trials.
Humans mentally process and represent incoming sensory information to perform a wide range of tasks, such as object recognition, navigation, making inferences about the environment, and many others. Similarity judgments are commonly used to probe these mental representations1. Understanding the structure of mental representations can provide insight into the organization of conceptual knowledge2. It is also possible to gain insight into neural computations, by relating similarity judgments to brain activation patterns3. Additionally, similarity judgments reveal features that are salient in perception4. Studying how mental representations change during development can shed light on how they are learned5. Thus, similarity judgments provide valuable insight into information processing in the brain.
A common model of mental representations using similarities is a geometric space model6,7,8. Applied to sensory domains, this kind of model is often referred to as a perceptual space9. Points in the space represent stimuli and distances between points correspond to the perceived dissimilarity between them. From similarity judgments, one can obtain quantitative estimates of dissimilarities. These pairwise dissimilarities (or perceptual distances) can then be used to model the perceptual space via multidimensional scaling10.
There are many methods for collecting similarity judgments, each with its advantages and disadvantages. The most straightforward way of obtaining quantitative measures of dissimilarity is to ask subjects to rate on a scale the degree of dissimilarity between each pair of stimuli. While this is relatively quick, estimates tend to be unstable across long sessions as subjects cannot go back to previous judgments, and context effects, if present, cannot be detected. (Here, a context effect is defined as a change in the judged similarity between two stimuli, based on the presence of other stimuli that are not being compared.) Alternatively, subjects can be asked to compare all pairs of stimuli to all other pairs of stimuli. While this would yield a more reliable rank ordering of dissimilarities, the number of comparisons required scales with the fourth power of the number of stimuli, making it feasible for only small stimulus sets. Quicker alternatives, like sorting into a predefined number of clusters11 or free sorting have their own limitations. Free sorting (into any number of piles) is intuitive, but it forces the subject to categorize the stimuli, even if the stimuli do not easily lend themselves to categorization. The more recent multi-arrangement method, inverse MDS, circumvents many of these limitations and is very efficient12. However, this method requires subjects to project their mental representations onto a 2D Euclidean plane and to consider similarities in a specific geometric manner, making the assumption that similarity structure can be recovered from Euclidean distances on a plane. Thus, there remains a need for an efficient method to collect large amounts of similarity judgments, without making assumptions about the geometry underlying the judgments.
Described here is a method that is both reasonably efficient and also avoids the above potential pitfalls. By asking subjects to rank stimuli in order of similarity to a central reference in each trial13, relative similarity can be probed directly, without assuming anything about the geometric structure of the subjects' responses. The paradigm repeats a subset of comparisons with both identical and different contexts, allowing for direct assessment of context effects as well as the acquisition of graded responses in terms of choice probabilities. The analysis procedure decomposes these rank judgments into multiple pairwise comparisons and uses them to build and search for Euclidean models of perceptual spaces that explain the judgments. The method is suitable for describing in detail the representation of stimulus sets of moderate sizes (e.g., 19 to 49).
To demonstrate the feasibility of the approach, an experiment was conducted, using a set of 37 animals as stimuli. Data was collected over the course of 10 one-hour sessions and then analyzed separately for each subject. Analysis revealed consistency across subjects and negligible context effects. It also assessed consistency of perceived dissimilarities between stimuli with Euclidean models of their perceptual spaces. The paradigm and analysis procedures outlined in this paper are flexible and are expected to be of use to researchers interested in characterizing the geometric properties of a range of perceptual spaces.
Prior to beginning the experiments, all subjects provide informed consent in accordance with institutional guidelines and the Declaration of Helsinki. In the case of this study, the protocol was approved by the institutional review board of Weill Cornell Medical College.
1. Installation and set-up
2. Data collection by setting up a custom experiment
NOTE: Procedures are outlined for both the image and word experiments up to step 3.1. Following this step, the process is the same for both experiments, so the image experiment is not explicitly mentioned.
3. Creating ranking trials
Figure 1: Representative examples of trials (step 3.3). (A) Each row contains the details of a single trial. Headers indicate the position of the stimulus around the circle. The stimulus under ref appears in the center and stim 1 to stim 8 appear around the reference. (B) The first trial (row) from A is rendered by PsychoPy to display the eight stimuli around the reference stimulus, monkey. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
NOTE: At this point, a full set of 222 trials for one complete experimental run, i.e., for one full data set, has been generated. Figure 1A shows part of a conditions file generated by the above script, for the word experiment (see Representative Results).
4. Running the experiment and collecting similarity data
5. Analyzing similarity judgments
NOTE: Subjects are asked to click stimuli in order of similarity to the reference, thus providing a ranking in each trial. For standard experiments, repeat each trial five times, generating five rank orderings of the same eight stimuli (see Figure 2B). These rank judgments are interpreted as a series of comparisons in which a subject compares pairs of perceptual distances. It is assumed the subject is asking the following question before each click: "Is the (perceptual) distance between the reference and stimulus A smaller than the distance between the reference and stimulus B?" As shown in Figure 2C, this yields choice probabilities for multiple pairwise similarity comparisons for each trial. The analysis below uses these choice probabilities.
Figure 2: Obtaining choice probabilities from ranking judgments. (A) An illustration of a trial from the word experiment we conducted. (B) Five rank orderings were obtained for the same trial, over the course of multiple sessions. (C) Choice probabilities for the pairwise dissimilarity comparisons that the ranking judgments represent. Please click here to view a larger version of this figure.
Figure 1A shows part of a conditions file generated by the script in step 3.3, for the word experiment. Each row corresponds to a trial. The stimulus in the ref column appears in the center of the display. The column names stim1 to stim8 correspond to eight positions along a circle, running counterclockwise, starting from the position to the right of the central reference. A sample trial from the word experiment is shown in Figure 1B.
The protocol outlined here is effective for obtaining and analyzing similarity judgments for stimuli that can be presented visually. The experimental paradigm, the analysis, and possible extensions are discussed first, and later the advantages and disadvantages of the method.
Experimental paradigm: The proposed method is demonstrated using a domain of 37 animal names, and a sample dataset of perceptual judgments is provided so that one can follow the analysis in step 5 and rep...
The authors have nothing to disclose.
The work is supported by funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), grant EY07977. The authors would also like to thank Usman Ayyaz for his assistance in testing the software, and Muhammad Naeem Ayyaz for his comments on the manuscript.
Name | Company | Catalog Number | Comments |
Computer Workstation | N/A | N/A | OS: Windows/ MacOS 10 or higher/ Linux; 3.1 GHz Dual-Core Intel Core i5 or similar; 8GB or more memory; User permissions for writing and executing files |
conda | Version 4.11 | OS: Windows/ MacOS 10 or higher/ Linux | |
Microsoft Excel | Microsoft | Any | To open and shuffle rows and columns in trial conditions files. |
PsychoPy | N/A | Version 2021.2 | Framework for running psychophysical studies |
Python 3 | Python Software Foundation | Python Version 3.8 | Python3 and associated built-in libraries |
Required Python Libraries | N/A | numpy version: 1.17.2 or higher; matplotlib version 3.4.3 or higher; scipy version 1.3.1 or higher; pandas version 0.25.3 or higher; seaborn version 0.9.0 or higher; scikit_learn version 0.23.1 or higher; yaml version 6.0 or higher | numpy, scipy and scikit_learn are computing modules with in-built functions for optimization and vector operations. matplotlib and seaborn are plotting libraries. pandas is used to reading in and edit data from csv files. |
Request permission to reuse the text or figures of this JoVE article
Request PermissionThis article has been published
Video Coming Soon
Copyright © 2025 MyJoVE Corporation. All rights reserved