Is subjective perceptual similarity metacognitive?
Moharramipour, A.; Zhou, W.; Rahnev, D.; Lau, H.
Show abstract
Perceptual similarity is a cornerstone for human learning and generalization. However, in assessing perceptual similarity between two stimuli, it is not well-defined which features or combinations of features one should focus on. The problem has accordingly been considered ill-posed, implying a lack of a clear ground-truth basis for similarity judgments. We hypothesized that the stimuli rated as subjectively similar are those that are, in fact, more challenging for oneself to discern in practice, in near-threshold settings (e.g., psychophysics experiments). Therefore, an individuals perceptual discrimination capacities can serve as a quasi-objective ground truth for determining whether two stimuli should be judged as similar. To test this idea, we asked participants to rank the similarity of face pairs and also separately measured their discrimination capacity for those pairs. We found a positive association between perceptual discrimination capacity and subjective perceptual dissimilarity, with this association being specific to each individual. The results indicate that perceptual similarity judgments reflect and predict ones own perceptual discrimination capacities. Overall, although subjective, similarity judgments are normative in that they are grounded in ones perceptual capacities, which can be measured through a psychophysical task with objective responses.
Matching journals
The top 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- How the forest interacts with the trees: Multiscale shape integration explains global and local processing 94%
- Visual discrimination of optical material properties: a large-scale study 94%
- Crystal or Jelly? Effect of Color on the Perception of Translucent Materials with Photographs of Real-world Objects 94%
Similar papers in this journal
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.