The spatial arrangement method of measuring similarity can capture high-dimensional semantic structures

被引:23
作者
Richie, Russell [1 ]
White, Bryan [2 ]
Bhatia, Sudeep [1 ]
Hout, Michael C. [2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Penn, 3720 Walnut St, Philadelphia, PA 19104 USA
[2] New Mexico State Univ, Las Cruces, NM 88003 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
similarity; multidimensional scaling; spatial cognition; concepts; traits; Big Five; PERSONALITY; EXEMPLAR; MODEL; IDENTIFICATION; APPLICABILITY; COLLECTION; EFFICIENT; TESTS; BIAS; SPAM;
D O I
10.3758/s13428-020-01362-y
中图分类号
B841 [心理学研究方法];
学科分类号
040201 ;
摘要
Psychologists collect similarity data to study a variety of phenomena including categorization, generalization and discrimination, and representation itself. However, collecting similarity judgments between all pairs of items in a set is expensive, spurring development of techniques like the Spatial Arrangement Method (SpAM; Goldstone, Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 26, 381-386, 1994), wherein participants place items on a two-dimensional plane such that proximity reflects perceived similarity. While SpAM greatly hastens similarity measurement, and has been successfully used for lower-dimensional, perceptual stimuli, its suitability for higher-dimensional, conceptual stimuli is less understood. In study 1, we evaluated the ability of SpAM to capture the semantic structure of eight different categories composed of 20-30 words each. First, SpAM distances correlated strongly (r = .71) with pairwise similarity judgments, although below SpAM and pairwise judgment split-half reliabilities (r's > .9). Second, a cross-validation exercise with multidimensional scaling fits at increasing latent dimensionalities suggested that aggregated SpAM data favored higher (> 2) dimensional solutions for seven of the eight categories explored here. Third, split-half reliability of SpAM dissimilarities was high (Pearson r = .90), while the average correlation between pairs of participants was low (r = .15), suggesting that when different participants focus on different pairs of stimulus dimensions, reliable high-dimensional aggregate similarity data is recoverable. In study 2, we show that SpAM can recover the Big Five factor space of personality trait adjectives, and that cross-validation favors a four- or five-dimension solution on this dataset. We conclude that SpAM is an accurate and reliable method of measuring similarity for high-dimensional items like words. We publicly release our data for researchers.
引用
收藏
页码:1906 / 1928
页数:23
相关论文
共 83 条
[1]   One- Through Six-Component Solutions from Ratings on Familiar English Personality-Descriptive Adjectives [J].
Ashton, Michael C. ;
Lee, Kibeom ;
Boies, Kathleen .
JOURNAL OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES, 2015, 36 (03) :183-189
[2]   The Perception of Naturalness Correlates with Low-Level Visual Features of Environmental Scenes [J].
Berman, Marc G. ;
Hout, Michael C. ;
Kardan, Omid ;
Hunter, MaryCarol R. ;
Yourganov, Grigori ;
Henderson, John M. ;
Hanayik, Taylor ;
Karimi, Hossein ;
Jonides, John .
PLOS ONE, 2014, 9 (12)
[3]   Naturalistic multiattribute choice [J].
Bhatia, Sudeep ;
Stewart, Neil .
COGNITION, 2018, 179 :71-88
[4]  
Borg I., 1997, Modern Multidimensional Scaling
[5]   AN ANALYSIS OF SEQUENCES OF RESTRICTED ASSOCIATIVE RESPONSES [J].
Bousfield, W. A. ;
Sedgewick, C. H. W. .
JOURNAL OF GENERAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1944, 30 (02) :149-165
[6]   SOME EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS IN THE CORRELATION OF MENTAL ABILITIES [J].
Brown, William .
BRITISH JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 1910, 3 :296-322
[7]   English semantic feature production norms: An extended database of 4436 concepts [J].
Buchanan, Erin M. ;
Valentine, K. D. ;
Maxwell, Nicholas P. .
BEHAVIOR RESEARCH METHODS, 2019, 51 (04) :1849-1863
[8]   Accounts of blending, distinctiveness, and typicality in the false recognition of faces [J].
Busey, TA ;
Tunnicliff, JL .
JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY-LEARNING MEMORY AND COGNITION, 1999, 25 (05) :1210-1235
[9]   ANALYSIS OF INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN MULTIDIMENSIONAL SCALING VIA AN N-WAY GENERALIZATION OF ECKART-YOUNG DECOMPOSITION [J].
CARROLL, JD ;
CHANG, JJ .
PSYCHOMETRIKA, 1970, 35 (03) :283-&
[10]   Similarity and proximity: When does close in space mean close in mind? [J].
Casasanto, Daniel .
MEMORY & COGNITION, 2008, 36 (06) :1047-1056