The present pilot study was designed to obtain samples of numerical vibrotactile magnitude estimations from two groups of 37 randomly selected subjects (Mage = 22.04 yr.) and to determine if these numbers were statistically equivalent. Analysis showed the numerical responses of the two groups of subjects were statistically equivalent. It was suggested that they might be viewed as a representative sample of magnitude-estimation numbers that could be employed in experimentation on lingual vibrotactile magnitude production.
References
1.
BockR. D.Multivariate statistical methods in behavioral research. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.
2.
EislerH.On the nature of subjective scales. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 1982, 23, 161–170.
3.
FucciD.HarrisD., & PetrosinoL.The effect of contactor area on vibrotactile magnitude function exponents for the tongue and hand. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1983, 21, 400–402. (a)
4.
FucciD.HarrisD., & PetrosinoL.Stability of magnitude production scales for lingual vibrotactile sensation. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1983, 57, 499–504. (b)
5.
FucciD.HarrisD., & PetrosinoL.Sensation magnitude scales for vibrotactile stimulation of the tongue and thenar eminence. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1984, 58, 843–848.
6.
FucciD., & PetrosinoL.Lingual vibrotactile sensation magnitudes: comparison of suprathreshold responses for three different age ranges. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1983, 57, 31–38. (a)
7.
FucciD., & PetrosinoL.Lingual vibrotactile sensation magnitudes: comparison of suprathreshold responses for the tongue and hand. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1983, 74, 351–353. (b)
8.
FucciD., & PetrosinoL.Lingual vibrotactile sensation magnitudes: comparison of suprathreshold responses in men and women. Perception & Psychophysics, 1983, 33, 93–95. (c)
9.
FucciD.PetrosinoL., & HarrisD.Influence of scaling range on vibrotactile power function exponents for the tongue and hand. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1983, 57, 642.
10.
FucciD.PetrosinoL., & HarrisD.Stability of magnitude production scales for oral and nonoral vibrotactile methanoreceptive systems. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1984, 58, 691–697.
11.
FucciD.PetrosinoL.WallaceD., & SmallL.Modification of instrumentation for research on lingual vibrotactile sensitivity: elimination of the tongue clamping procedure. Review of Scientific Instruments, 1982, 53, 1294–1296.
12.
LuceR. D.What son of measurement is psychophysical measurement?American Psychologist, 1972, 27, 96–106.
13.
PetrosinoL.FucciD., & HarrisD.Threshold influences on vibrotactile magnitude production scaling. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1984, 22, 139–141.
StevensS. S.The measurement of loudness. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 1955, 27, 815–820.
16.
StevensS. S.The psychophysics of sensory function. In RosenblithW. A. (Ed.), Sensory communication. New York: Wiley, 1961. Pp. 1–33.
17.
StevensS. S.A metric for the social consensus. Science, 1966, 151, 530–541.
18.
TeghtsoonlanM., & TeghtsoontanR.How repeatable are Stevens's power law exponents for individual subjects. Perception & Psychophysics, 1971, 10, 147–149.
19.
TeghtsoonianM., & TeghtsoonianR.Consistency of individual exponents in cross-modal matching. Perception & Psychophysics, 1983, 33, 203–214.
20.
WanschuraR. G., & DawsonW. E.Regression effect and individual power functions over sessions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974, 162, 806–812.
21.
WarrenR. M.Measurement of sensory intensity. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 1981, 4, 175–223.
22.
ZwislockiJ., & GoodmanD.Absolute scaling of sensory magnitudes: a validation. Perception & Psychophysics, 1980, 28, 28–38.
