En este trabajo se revisan diferentes modelos psicofísicos sobre las respuestas en tareas de estimación. Comenzando con una breve exposición de los modelos clásicos de Fechner y Stevens, quedan de manifiesto las deficiencias entre ambos, sobre todo su incapacidad de explicar los sesgos de respuestas. Probablemente por este motivo es comúnmente aceptado que en toda tarea psicofísica inciden factores sensoriales y cognitivos. Los primeros suelen describirse mediante una única función, si bien no existe acuerdo en la forma de la misma. Para los segundos se van proponiendo modelos cada vez más complejos en los que se descompone el tránsito de la sensación a la respuesta en diferentes estadíos.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AttneaveF. (1962). Perception and Related Areas. EnKochS. (Ed.). Psychology: A study of a science. Vol. 4 (pp. 619–659). Nueva York: McGraw-Hill.
BairdJ.C.GreenD.M.LuceR.D. (1980). Variability and sequential effects in cross- modality matchintg of area and loudness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfomance, 6, 277–289.
4.
BairdJ.C.NomaE. (1978). Fundamentals of Scaling and Psychophysics.Nueva York: John Wiley.
5.
BorgG. (1972). A ratio scaling method for interindividual comparisons.Report from the Institute of Applied Psychology, 27. Universidad de Estocolmo.
6.
BorgG. (1982). A category scale with ratio properties for intermodal and interindividual comparisons. EnGeisslerH.G.PetzoldP. (eds.), Psychophysical judgment and the process of perception (pp. 25–34). Berlín: VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.
7.
BrunerJ.S. (1957). On perceptual readiness.Psychological Review, 64, 123–152.
8.
EislerH. (1963). A general differential equation and psychophysics.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology4, 65–272.
9.
EkmanG. (1956a). Discriminal sensitivity on the subjective continuum.Acta Psychologica, 12, 243–253.
10.
EkmanG. (1956b). Subjective power functions and the method of fractionation.Report from the Psychological Laboratory, 34. Universidad de Estocolmo.
11.
EkmanG. (1961). Methodological note on scales of gustatory intensity.Scandinavian Journal of Psychology2, 185–190.
12.
EllemeirW.WestphalW.HeidenfelderM. (1991). On the «absoluteness» of category and magnitude scales of pain.Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 159–166.
13.
FontesS. (1988). Psicofísica de la Estimación de Distancias entre dos Rectas Verticales y Paralelas. Tesis doctoral. Madrid: UNED.
14.
GalanterE.MessickS. (1961). The relation between category and magnitude scales of loudness.Psychological Review, 68, 363–372.
15.
GarnerW.R. (1962). Uncertainty and structure as psychological concepts.Nueva York: Wiley.
16.
Garriga-TrilloA. (1981). ¿Fechner o Stevens? Sensasiones olfativas ante el n-propanol. Tesina de licenciatura. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
17.
Garriga-TrilloA. (1985). Función psicofisica y medida de la sensibilidad olfativa. Tesis Doctoral. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid.
18.
Garriga-TrilloA.VillarinoA.González-labraM.J.ArnauM.A. (1994). La calibración de juicios psicofísicos: Estimación de magnitudes.Psicothema, 6, 3, 525–532.
19.
GescheiderG.A. (1985). Psychophysics:Method, Theory and Application.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
20.
GescheiderG.A.HughsonB. (1991). Stimulus context and absolute magnitude estimation: A study of individual differences.Percepcion & Psychophysics, 50, 45–57.
21.
GescheiderG.A.McdonnellK.A. (1991). The effects of context on magnitude estimation and absolute magnitude estimation. EnLockheadG. (Ed.), Fechner day91, (pp. 109, 113). Durham: ISP.
22.
GuiraoM. (1987). Estimaciones numéricas de brillo y luminosidad con y sin rangos fijos.Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 19, 297–317.
23.
GuiraoM. (1991). A Single Scale Based on Ratio and Partition Estimates. EnBolanowskiS.J.GescheiderG.A. (Eds.), Ratio Scaling of Psychological Magnitude (pp. 59–78). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
MarleyA.A.J.CookV.T. (1984). A fixed rehearsal capacity interpretation of limits on absolute identification perfomance.British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 37, 136–151.
31.
MarleyA.A.J.CookV.T. (1986). A limited capacity rehearsal model for psychophysical judgments applied to magnitude estimation.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 30, 339–390.
MerinoJ.M.Garriga-TrilloA.García-gallegoC.VillarinoA.Rodriguez-MiñónP. (1991). Different least squares fitting options to psychophysical data. EnLockheadG. (Ed.), Fechner day, 91 (pp. 83–88). Durham: ISP.
35.
ParducciA.WedellD.H. (1986). The category effect with rating scales: Number of categories, number of stimuli, and method of presentation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfomance, 12, 4, 496–516.
36.
PoultonE.C. (1979). Models for biases in judging sensory magnitudes.Psychological Bulletin, 86, 777–803.
37.
PoultonE.C. (1989). Bias in Quantifying Judgments.Londres: L.E.A.
38.
PoultonE.C. (1990). Two kinds of numerical magnitude judgments. EnMüller (Ed.), Fechner day, 90 (pp. 64–69). Würzburg: ISP.
39.
Rodríguez-miñónP. (1989). Ajuste de funciones: Psicofísica. Tesis doctoral. UNED: Madrid.
40.
ShepardR.N. (1978). On the status of «direct» psychophysical measurement.En Minnesota studies in the philosophy of science, vol.9: Perception and cognition issues in the foundations of psychology.C.W. Savage: University of Minnesota Press.
StevensS.S. (1957). On the psychophysical law.Psychological Review, 64, 153–181.
43.
StevensS.S. (1964). Concerning the psychophysical power law.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 16, 383–385.
44.
StevensS.S. (1975). Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual, neural and social prospects.Nueva York: Wiley.
45.
TreismanM. (1993). The mechanism of categorical perception. EnGarrigaA. (Chairman), New approaches to Psychophysics. Tematic session conducted at Nith Meeting of the I.S.P., Palma de Mallorca.
46.
VillarinoA. (1994). Medidas de la Sensibilidad Gustativa: Una Aplicación para la Discriminación de Vinos. Tesis Doctoral. Madrid: UNED.
47.
WardL.E. (1976). A Fuzzy theory of psychophysic al judgment.Psychonomic Society Meeting, Nov.
48.
WardL.E. (1977). Stimulus information and theory of fuzzy.Mathematical Psychology Meeting, Agosto, 1977.
49.
WardL.E. (1982). Mixed-modality psychophysical scaling: sequential dependencies and other properties.Perception & Psychophysics, 31, 53–62.
50.
WardL.E. (1985). Mixed-modality psychophysical scaling: inter and intramodality sequential dependencies as a function of lag.Perception & Psychophysics, 38, 511–522.
51.
WardL.E. (1990). Critical bands and mixed-frequency scaling: Sequential dependencies, equal-loud- ness contours, and power function exponents.Perception & Psychophysics, 47 (6), 551–562.
52.
WardL.E. (1991). Associative measurement of psychological magnitude. EnBolanowskiS.J.GescheiderG.A. (Eds.), Ratio Scaling of Psychological Magnitude (pp. 79–99). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
53.
ZadehL.A. (1965). Fuzzy sets.Information and Control, 8, 338–353.
54.
ZwislockiJ.J. (1983). Group and individual relations between sensation magnitudes and their numerical estimates.Perception & Psychophysics, 33 (5), 460–468.
55.
Zwislocki, (1991). Natural measurement. EnBolanowskiS.J.GescheiderG.A. (Eds.), Ratio Scaling of Psychological Magnitude (pp. 18–26). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
