Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

A theory of variability discrimination: finding differences.

Michael E Young1, Edward A Wasserman, Michelle R Ellefson

  • 1Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, Illinois 62901-6502, USA. meyoung@siu.edu

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
|December 20, 2007
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

A psychological-scaling approach to unraveling the nature of Pigeons' categorization of natural visual objects.

Psychological review·2026
Same author

Set-shifting and task-switching make differential contributions to divergent thinking in adolescence.

BMC psychology·2026
Same author

Nonnumerical stimuli exert surprisingly strong behavioral control in an unconstrained numerical discrimination learning task.

Cognition·2026
Same author

Variability, stability, and the law of effect.

Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition·2026
Same author

Decoupling Design from Darwinian and Skinnerian Selection.

Perspectives on behavior science·2026
Same author

Focused and distributed: Diverse attentional profiles in pigeon category learning.

Learning & behavior·2026
Same journal

Mind wandering during first- and foreign-language reading.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Lexical word processing is unaffected by rapid invisible frequency tagging in reading: Evidence from eye movements.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Anxiety modulates voluntary attentional orienting to emotional gaze cues: Eye movements for pro- and anti-saccades.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Faster key-press responses to front vowels than back vowels when matching heard vowels with represented vowels.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Testing the interleaving effect without response bias: A forced-choice reevaluation of Kornell and Bjork (2008).

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

The impact of social interaction on abstract concepts.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
See all related articles

A new theory explains how humans and animals perceive visual variability by aggregating local differences. This "finding differences" model accurately predicts performance across various tasks and species, outperforming previous models for quantitative assessments.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive psychology
  • Comparative psychology
  • Visual perception

Background:

  • Visual variability discrimination is crucial for adaptive behaviors in humans and animals.
  • Existing models, like positional entropy, explain some aspects of this discrimination.
  • A gap exists in explaining discriminations involving quantitative item differences.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To present and validate a new theory of visual variability discrimination.
  • To compare the proposed "finding differences" model with the "positional entropy" model.
  • To assess model performance on datasets with both qualitative and quantitative item differences.

Main Methods:

  • Developing a "finding differences" model that aggregates localized differences between nearby items.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Comparing model predictions with existing datasets from human and pigeon studies.
  • Conducting four new experiments, including three with systematic, quantitative item differences.

    • Main Results:

    • Both the "finding differences" and "positional entropy" models fit previously published data well.
    • The "finding differences" model is uniquely applicable to quantitative item differences.
    • The "finding differences" model provided excellent fits for new experiments involving quantitative differences.

    Conclusions:

    • The "finding differences" model offers a more comprehensive account of visual variability discrimination.
    • This model's ability to handle quantitative differences has significant implications for understanding visual perception.
    • The findings support the aggregation of localized differences as a key mechanism in visual variability discrimination across species.