Analyzing Distinctive Features
- 1 June 1977
- journal article
- Published by American Educational Research Association (AERA) in Journal of Educational Statistics
- Vol. 2 (2) , 79-98
- https://doi.org/10.3102/10769986002002079
Abstract
A statistical technique is proposed for comparing an empirically obtained confusion matrix against a set of distinctive features that supposedly characterize the stimuli on which the given confusion matrix is based. Each distinctive feature corresponds to a partition of the stimulus set, and the term “confusion matrix” refers to the measures of “closeness” collected on all pairs of stimuli. The suggested paradigm can be considered an analysis-of-variance generalization and is dependent on a randomization strategy for evaluating the size of a goodness-of-fit index calculated between the given confusion matrix and a single partition. An example of the inference scheme is carried out on a data set dealing with the 26 Roman capital letters; in addition, an exploratory strategy is illustrated that tries to locate “good” partitionings of a stimulus set in a post-hoc manner.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- QUADRATIC ASSIGNMENT AS A GENERAL DATA ANALYSIS STRATEGYBritish Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 1976
- Evaluating object set partitions: Free-sort analysis and some generalizationsJournal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1976
- The Optimal Partitioning of GraphsSIAM Journal on Applied Mathematics, 1976
- An operations research approach to the modeling and analysis of different feature sets proposed for human perception of capital lettersComputers & Operations Research, 1975
- Alphabetic confusion: A test of models for individualsPerception & Psychophysics, 1971
- Theoretical analysis of an alphabetic confusion matrixPerception & Psychophysics, 1971
- An Efficient Heuristic Procedure for Partitioning GraphsBell System Technical Journal, 1970
- Allocating Indivisible Resources Affording External Economies or DiseconomiesInternational Economic Review, 1962