Sunteți pe pagina 1din 14

s

pmn

Y

i ::::)

Research,

ra.tio scalesof senso~

and affec-

ha~

c~s:(r = 0.9.9° ' wi~h eider

e v:erb~ ly {r = 0:99~ 0o99)

duration and~ hand- ,s in ~:exDe~men ts

McGill Pain Questionnaire, based on category-scale~: verbal descriptors, has been used to quantify clinical pain and to measure the relative efficacy of pain control methods [17]. The questionnaire also has shown considerable diagnostic power. Different profiles of categorical pain responses have dis- tinguished between different pain syndromes with 77% reich . Therefore the McGilt Pain Questionnaire may be an important to01 for the quantification of qualities unique to specific chronic pain conditions. However, there is also a need for verbal scales which measure dimensions common to pain syndromes. Such verbal scales would permit comp~mns among acute, chronic and experimental pain responses, information gained

~om these comparisons would increase our understanding of both physio- logical and psychological mechanisms of pain and analgesia, a~ well as provide useful models for the evaluation of new pain controi methods. In addition, common scales of experimental and clinical pain and direct matches between experimental and clinical pain can verff~Vthe clinical use of such scales. The most commonly used dimensions of pain are its sensory and affecfive or unp!easant aspects, a distinction which has been expressed repeatedly in studies of human pain experience. The sensory aspects of pain are similar to those of other sensory modalities in that pain sensations vary in intensity, quality, duration and locus. The affective aspects are presumably a function of cognitive and motivational variables influenced by a broad spectrum of psycholo~cal factors. Human studies suggest thtit analgesics act by modi- filing either the sensory or affective components [2--6,8]. Other studies have sho~n that these two components of pain experience may be distin- guishable at a physiological level. It has been hypothesized that nerve im- pulses related to pain are conveyed, in part, by a neospinothalamic system concerned with the sensory discriminative aspects of sensation and, in addi. tion, that these nerve impulses converge on central pathways known to par-

ticipate ~n the motivational and

affective components of behavior [ 18].

Verbal descriptors of sensory intensity and affect have been scaled ~by

l~Lack and Torgerson [19] and Tursky [28]. Although sensory intensity

has been measured in terms

ent study to indicate only magnitude of sensation (e.g.,weak, rood , strong). The ~'affective" label has been applied to emotional and motiva0 tional variables. It is used here in a motivational or hedonic sense :to refer to pain "unpleasantness" (e.g., uncomfortable, distressing, intolerable). This usage is similar to the evaluative category of Melzack and Torgerson E19] and the reaction category of Tursky E28]. An additional and critical need in pain measurement is the assessment of reliability and objectivi~. Reliability expresses the similarity or consistency of descriptor use either between or within subjects. Objectivity is the relative degree to which individuals use verbal descriptors in a simi]ar fashion. Objec- tivity is defined mathematically by comparing the reliabiHty of-descriptor use between individuals to the reliab~W of descriptoruse within individuals t4]o Objecthdty increases as between reliability approaches within reliabiL ity. Present verbal pain measures which use group normative scale values to

of sensory qualities, th~ term is used ~n the pres-

quan?~ify ~he

pain

responses

of

an

individual are appropria%e only

wi%h

A further requiremen% is %he production of valid pain measures by a bias- free scaling procedure. The category me~hods used in many pain measures

the sc re of cross-m matching produces relatively bias-free scales: u~ ~ain~,, :~.de~t~r~,~,~.,,~ ~---- ~ nr-- other, verbal stimu~. The basics of a cros g procedure involve £he adju of a response con- tinuum (e.g., handgrip force, time d~afion, loudness, numbers) in relation the magnitude of a stimulus continuum. If the response is expressed by numbers, the me~hod-is called '°magnitude estimation'. In the simplest cross= modality matching procedure, subjects make an arbitrary response to the first stimulus and then respond proportionally to successive stimuli. The result of this and more complicated procedures is ratio sthmulus scales (interval scales with a zero} which enable subjects to make meaningfuI ratio statements about stimulus magnitudes such as, '%his stimulus feels twice as intense as that one." Although cross,modali~y ma+~chL~gprocedures are commonly u~d to scale physically measurable stimuli, the validity of their application to verbal stimuli can be demonstrated by specific functional relationships common to bo~.h types of stimuli. For example, cross-modality matches of two dimen- sions to a third predicts the relation between those two dimensions. ~n addi= ~ion, scales derived from direc~ ra~io me~hods such as cross-modali~y match= ing are approximately logarithmically rela~ed %0 scales derived from indirec~; me~hods such as ranking, category rasing, or ~he me~hod of paired compari- sons [21--23]. Wi~h these requirements in mind we conducted ~wo experiments in which:

(1) subjects scaled sensory and affective verbal pain descriptors by cro~s= modali~y ma~chmg procedures designed %0 bo~h r~uce scaling biase~ and

provide ~" m~ernal " : chec

. desc~p~rs in %wo sessions ~o permi~

and be%ween-group correta%ions, and w~h'.m-individual and be~ween-individo ual correlations; (~) ~he verbal descrip%0r scales were examined for specific

func%ional rela%ionships obse~ed for physically measurable s%imu~i. The da%a from ~he~ expe~en%s are per~inen~ ~o ~he following questions.

(1) ~s it valid to use verbal pain descrip~rs in crossomodaii~y matching pro- cedures commonly used to ra%e physic~/ly measurable s~imuli? (2} Are sc~es

ks of validlY: y

[

~ , 21

24

],

"

(

2

)

each of two groups scaled

, the compu~a%ion of bo%h within-group

of verbal p~

descriptor scalederived from an individual better predicted by ano%her scale

descriptors reliable? (8) Are Zhese scales objec$ive? ~s a

from ~ha~ individual or by a mean scalederived from a group?

METHODS

Experiment

The sul

23),

dian,

/

i¸¸

recorded by a digital sample and hold c~cuit with a resolu~on of 0~05 kg, S~imuli were rear projected upon a 37 cm × 38cm translucen¢ screen by a Kodak model 960 random access projector. The subjects were randomly assigned ~o groups A and B w~th 4men and 4 women in each group. The groups d~d not differ in expe~en~al trea~- men~s. Each subject participated ~n ~w¢~ ~-h sessions separated by 1 week. The subjecFs task was to evaluate the lengths of lines and the m~nRudes of sensory and affecfive descriptors by means of bo~h numeric~ m~i~ude estimation and cross-modali~y matching '~,o hand~p force, Both sfim~us and response orders were counterbalance~ ~n an exper~entA session ~he experimenter first explained ~he disfincti~n between affect~ve and sensow components of pan. The experimenter then de,Abed ~he proc~ures for magnitude estimation and cross-modal~y ma~hh~g ~o hand~p force, The subjects made a numerical or handgrip response to ~he firs~ stimulus, and then responded ~o subsequent stimuli w~h numbe~rs or gaps in proportion

to ~heir first response.

Experiment H

The

subjects were 20 men and 20 w~me n,

23)~ The

7 lines

of

v

iable 1eriCh. Line, stim

i.

wo

d

tin

li

ere ch

ged to

are shown in Table IV. Each

sured on a Lafayette model 63314 di~!;~ reaction upon a telegraph key actuated a minisecond ~imer and :~ audi~ cue;In

a single l°h session each subject rank.or¢~ered the affective :~d sensory

descriptors and scaled the 3 stimulus series (affective descriptors, senso~ descAptors~ lines) by crossomod~ity matching to time duration and :to hand. grip force. Each s~;imulus seAes w~ presented separately, with eachsthn~us presented twice ~n random order. S~imulus order and response order were

counterbalanced, al~hough tine ~fimuli consistently preceded verb~ s~muli

so tha~ the ine~peffenced subjects could make She !~nejudgments before~he more dffficul~ word judgments°

RESULTS

Experimen$ I

r~p

goodness of fit of the power functions by show/ng the proportion of va~:~o ability m the log responses that is accounted for by the vEiabflity in the s intensity. These coefficientswere 0.99 and 0.98 for magnitude estimation and for hand~p force.Since verbal descriptorshave no metric of thee own, power functions could not be determined for the mean responses to each word. However, the exponent for the power function relat- ing handgrip responses to magnitude estimation responses for each verbal stimulus was This e nt confirmed the expected non-linearrelation between these two response motilities. In order to compaze these response.~ measures, they were firstt-ran to a common reference continuum° Line length was chosen as the reference continuum because judgments of line length are roughly proportions/to actual linelength [25,27]° The geo- metric mean magnitude estimate and hm%dgr~p response to each verbed stim- ulus were transformed to relativemagnitude (linelengthsl. ']'hiswas accom° pushed by relatingthe values of the descriptorsdetennh~ed by the particular response (numerical estimate or handg~p squeeze) to the v~ues of the lines

determined by the same response measure. Algebraically:

:The

of

on (r2)

~n index of the

re=power

mnc~lon

:ived from m~itude !' derived ~om cros~o it~c mean m~itude ip force for word '~i';

:or for cross-modality matches of hand~ip

m~m~dde

estimates of line

force,

 

in terms of line stimuh by a response measure i%e~ession b:~" observed to occur in

 

Psyohophysic~ re~s~:o: b:~ :~ a

power function exponents° Theore%o

:~!

~ry

a:~sions

:o~ane:s and br:et'

hess, the

neat

power

re:atmg A as a respon~ t~ ~ as

'

~

~ ~i~,

~

~ ~i~~/~!/~i~/~iiili~!i~i~/~i~i~i:~,~~ii~~//:i/~~ii!!~//~/~!i~!~!~i~i~!~!~i~i~!~i~i~i~;!~i~!~!~i~!ii~

i;ii!!!iii¸::~!:i!!;i~:?

a response to

the continuum they

A

~

the

a st~nulus; ~n praCtice, subjects ~est:

expee~d

exponent:

~~!/:!

s0 tha~ th:e eb~aifi~ 5ne way in:which thi~ b~/

nent

reduced

~s less

or

than

eliminated ~s by adjusting a

~i~i~i!~iii~'~~ii~,

!~!~i!i~~ii~!iii~i~i~i~i~ili~i

ii~i!~ii~',ii:i~/i!i~

r

iii,~~ii'i~~ii~~i~i

presea~ experiment:

imde :a~

for bo~h wo~d ~d ::line:stimulLTb

t~nuum, and by adjusting< acorn

verbs] s~irnu]~the responses ~ t]

bias-free

relatbze

magnitudes.

The tog

el ti e

non:

i¸)i/'

~ i¸¸,/Ii~ii!i/!::~i:i/i~,/il/:¸i~i¸~I,~i¸¸~,i

presented in Figs. 1 and 2. Hand~p

of

c

o

-moa

ty

ethoa

i!i~i!i~~i'~~i!i~i:i/~'

)

the two response measures. The inter-response sensor~o descriptors and 0.98 for the reliabiL:~ty, the two response measure' magnitude scale as shown on the between the sensory and affective de,riper v~ues:is evident in:F~gs, t and

w fJ ~E

o LZ.

f,L

:

~3

Z

<

3=

0

uJ

o

Z

¢D

<

>

0 .J

2.0 w

@

1.5

1.0

SENSORY

/

/

 

~-~ExtTemeb/tntense

 

%/

voo, tntense

 

/

~

VeryStrong

,~

"4

intense

.4."- s.~g

 

i

-"

/~

~

SIightlvModerate

 

-

4-- Mi~

/

"[/v.~,Mi~

0

-.25., -.5

-

®

//

/ ~

0

/

!

.5

J

1.0

I

1.5

~

~Weak

w~ W~k

e,~eme~Weak

2.0

LOGRELATIVEMAGNgTUDE-MAGNQTUDEESTIMATION

F~g. ~

~ty rna~ch~ng~o hand.grip force and from magn~f,ude esthnaL]on procedures. Log re!a~Jve

of sensory"descriptor re]af,~vemagnitudes derived from cross-modalo

Comparisons

magnitude

derived

from

rnagn~ude esL~ma~on ~s

re!a~ive

magnitude

derived

from

cross-moda~y ma~ch~ng ~o ha~dgr~p forc~; ~s pre~nLed,::on ~he

ordinate. Each point ~s ~he geometric mean of !;28 resp0n~ ~o:,as :ng~e sensory

d

Pi

tot. The s~ra]ght !]ne

~n ~h~s and subsequent figures W~ fi~~o :thei o~s~"by~the ' mbth:~d

of leas~ sq~ares, the mean

right vertical &~So

of ~he ~wo rnagn~Ludes for each descri ~or ~sshowfi:on::~he

11

W

9

axis.

o

0

AFFECTrVE

t

.5

1.0

I

1.5

2.0

Excruciating

tntolerab|e

Bearable

s.mod-

elative

elafive

on the

eserip-

rerfical

2, The log senso~range (4.16 to 1.7)exceeds that of the log affective range (0.4~1.48), The ratio of the least to l~est arithmetic v~ue is 10/1 and 85/I for the affective and sensory words, respectively. This range difference is consis~nt with that found in another experiment in which similar words

were

two sessions 1 week apart.

in the firstexperimental session

!second

session° Table[ shows

E AND SENSOI~,Y VEB.BAL ~,GROUPEI A AND B

between descriptorvaluesdeter-

Group

N

Sensory

Affect,~ :~e

A and

B

16

0.99

0.98

A

8

0.99

0.99

B

8

0.99

0.98

12

TABLE 1~ BETWEEN GRObT CORRELATIONS OF AFFECTIVE AND SENSORY VERB~ DESCRIPTOR SCALES FOR THE FIRST AND SECOND EXPEREVIENTAL SESSIONS AND FOR BOTH SESSIONS COMBINED

Each group con:~air~ 8 subjects.

ExperimenCal day

Sensory

Affecfive

Firs¢

0.98

0.98

Second

0.99

0.97

First and second

0.97

0.98

group repeat correlations for all subjects and for groups A and B. All g~oup correlations are high; the sensory correla¢ions are siighfly higher and less variable ~han Che affecfive correla¢ions. Correlations from all subjects are close ~o ~hose determined from only 8 subjects.

Group intercorrelatgons: between reliability

s

A and B are presented in Tab|~ !T~ All fall withi~.~a narrow range (0,97--0.99)

identical to the range of the group correlations

Compari~n

relations: objectivity

Table HI presents t,he mean correlations for the sensory and affective scales based on: (1) the correlation between ~h,e first and second scaling ses- sion for each subject (M); and (2) the correlation between individual word vatues from the first session for each subject and group word values from the first session for all other subjects (I-G).

of individual repeat correlations to individual group intercor-

Correlation coefficien¢~ compu¢~i between fl~e de

scales of

in Table I.

These

~wo correlations represent two scheme~ for quanta,~'~-"ymg individual

T2~3LE III

COMP.ARISON

OF

INDIVIDUAL

REPEAT

CORRELATIONS

AND

INIDIVIDUAL

GROUP CORRELATIONS OF SENSORY AND AFF~CTIVE VERBAL DESCR~OR

SCALES

Individual repeat correlations (I-I) represent mean Pear~mnProduct Moment Correlations for sensory and affecfive scales c0rap~¢d between the first and second scaling seg~ion for each subject. Individual group correlations (I~) represent mean Pearso~ Product Moment Correlations for sensory and affective scales com~uted for each subjiec~ by comp~ing individual descfip¢or values from Che first session and group descrip~,ar values from the first session for all other subjects.

Corr.

I°i

I-G

Sensory

Affecfive

Mean

S.D.

Mean

S.D.

0,96

0.00089

0.89

0.0025

9,96

0.00088

0.89

0.0041

13

isi

vidual

equally well.

pain

of

o

e (i.e.,, dete ntage ov

~sments

and

This

mmatien nf

to quan%i~

and a similar

in

c

presented in Table IH

p~n

result suggests that an in

n

of

word values by

each individual)

aortas. Group norms and indi-

pain descApt.or m~gnitudes

were e~ily remembered, subjects reported remem~Ang ~heir initial responses to each stimulus On its subsequent presentation. Their reports were confirmed by the data; the number assigned to the second presentation of a stimulus was identical to the number assigned to its initial presenta+-ion in 51% of all cases. Therefore when multiple responses are required to each sHmulus, as in this expeAment, verbal stimuli should not be combim::4 with

Experiment H

.se to line len~hs and s evidenced in experi- line length resulted in )r hand~p were 0.68

;ion {r2) was 0.99 for

rer function exponent ~es to common words magni%udes by me~s

Forrn~ response rneao

14

TABLN ~V

I%ELATIVE MAGNITUDES FOR SENSORY AND AFFECTIVE VE~BA

TORS FP.OM EXPEI%tMENTS t AND H

F

Exper[men¢ I Extremely ~n~ense

.:

60.2

Very ~n¢en~e

47.0

Very strong *

34.4

In.rise

33.8

S~ong

25.4

SHgh~ly ~n~en,~e

21.4

Barely s~rong

16.1

Moderate

11.2

Slightly moderate

9.0

Very moderate *

8.9

M~td

5.1

Very mild

3.3

Weak

2.6

Very weak

1.3

ExSrernely weak

0.7

Experiment II Extremely intense

77.5

Very intense

56.4

Intense

41.7

S~rong

25.8

SHgh¢ly ~n~ense

24.6

Clear cue *

18.5

Barely s~rong

15.4

Mo dera~e

1 ~. 1

Slightly moderate

10.4

Mild

5.4

Very mild

3.6

Weak

3.4

Very weak

1.7

Fain¢ *

1.6

Nx~reme~y weak

1.2

Excruciating

30.2

Intolerable

23.5

Unbearable

20.7

Agonizing

19.0

Horrible

16.0

Dreadful

14;6

Frightful

13.1

Awful *

11.6

M~serable

10.9

Oppre~ve *

10.7

6.4

 

4.0

Unpleasant

3.8

D~s~rac~ng

3.1

Bearable *

2.9

Excruchting

38.7

Unbearable

26.8

Intolerable

26,7

Agonizing

25.1

Horrible

17.8

Dreadful

15.0

Frightful

12.4

M~serable

11:7

D~ress~ng

7.7

Upse~,~ing *

6.1

Irri~a~ing *

4,7

Unple~n~

4.0

Unc0mforCable

3.8

Annoying *

3.5

Distracting

3.1

sures were linear, they were combined into the mean relative magnitude scsde sho~m~: in Table IV. The differences beCween the ranges of the affective ~d

sensoW arithmetic rela~ve magn respective!y) were sim~ar to Sho~

1,

C~mparison of mean ranks and ra$io descriptor magnftudes

Word~ on

ig° a

sh+ws

each

the

list were ranked

in order

from I~o

15 by each :subjeCt.

mean

rank orders

plotted a

amst the mean log reiati,e

~tUrn be

:~:~~(iii!i!~¸ii~!ili~iiiii!i!iii~i~i~:!ili~il/i(!i~ii~ii

:i¸~iii!!!i!!i~~i¸¸¸¸>¸¸ i¸i~i i:iil :,

/!

i/:::

/:/~

the

Ctive (r =0:99)~d

/!

!S

senseD~ (r =

and word stimuli in

~e

~0

~en0~

#~sically me~urable

(nOn,metre),

~nen~s c~ be computed between e~

tO Simil~ expone~ computed between the s~e cross-

LUlLA sim~~

differentcross-

exponents can

non-

°

between

e verb~ stimuli. and ret:~ably as

Compari~n of descrip$or magnitudes from experiments I and H

Table IV shows the mean relative magnitudes for the descriptors used in experiments 1[and !I. Fig. 4 shows the linear relationship between the values

j

2.0

AFFECTIVE

1'01

L

0

1

.5

~

1.0

J

1.5

[ rafdo-scaled

Log relatbze

[un

.~an~<~ are

s for

16

=

~<

UU

c~

.D

z

<

UU

_>

LU

~:

£0

60

40

20

o

0

~

SENSORY

/

20

,[

40

I

60

RELAT;VE MAGNITUDE-F

XP.I

I

80

5°[-

AFFECTIVE

°-

.g/

10

r-

o

I

/

I .~

/

~

I

0

10

2O

3O

I

4O

REL,~'~'~VEMAGNITUDE-EXP. ]

Fig. 4. Compm'ison between descriptor magnitudes determined ~n experiments [ and II. Mean relative magnitudes are shown for sensory (n =13) andaffec~ve (n = 12} descrip- tors common to bo~h vxper~ments. Relative magnitudes from experiment I are shown on the abscissae, ~hose from experiment H are shown on ~he ordinates. The best fit fines show ~[near relationships between the results of these experiments for both sensory (r = 0.99) and affect~ve (r= 0.99) descriptors.

of the word,,~ common ~o both experiments. The in,r-experiment correla- tions were 0.99 for both sensory and affective arithmetic word values. These correlations show a linear relationship between the results of the two experi-

Ixlen~;s.

DISCUSSION

descriptor stimuli in these e~ showed ~;he

and inte~al scales of

cross-modality exponents found:by comp--ing two

common verbal stimuli were similar to exponents found same responses to physically measurable line ~imuli in these expe~ments. T~:~ese e~:~onents were also similar to previously reposed exponents found for these comparisons. This a~eement between line and desc~ptor expo- nents in ~he present study and bet~een these reported fro~

the

metric stimu]i are compmed

tb,e use of verbal The reliabili~,y of: these results c~mbe correlations. High correla$ions

~:slt ~ii:~:

frQm:~ ~it~de

bei~een ~, ~u~ati~

e

atiQn ~d

h

!p :~esponses::in

17

experh~ent t, and

experknent ~L ~hen these

C~

dures. :

between by the ~ence or ~ject and that cross.mod~ity ratioscaling methods provide objective sc~cs of verbal st~uli, This objectivity is si~if-

be determine: reliably by the u~ of d~ect,ratio psychophysic~ proce-

:

-

-

~be ap- Lp of as ent and

is a!so

such as

reflect

for sex

.ve been

~plicated as important factors in pain attitudes [7]. Also, and perhaps a more important factor, education level may directly influence the meanings associated with verbal descriptors and the ability to quantify these meanings° Sirnfl~ effects might be expected from other determinants of language such

ip. Co~quent]y, future inves-

t~a~ns sho~ ex~ne ~e:reli~fiity ~ s~flity of verb~ descriptors in

po~u}~OnS v~g

~ ~~onQ~iC

s~d

e~nic ~emb

~,

~~,

educa~on and culture.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank Frederick J. Brown ~ud Peggy 1%. WJxdzek for their technical assistance -and Ronald L. Hayes and James M. Weiffenbach for their review of the.manuscript.

REFERENCES

.tirefrequenciesof numericalresponsesin 970) 358--862° 1~esponses,Oxford UniversityPre,~New

of diazepam on human painto~erar~ceand painsensitivity,Psychosom. Med., 35 (1973) 330--340.

18

 

Chapman, C.R., Gehrig, J.D. and Wilson, M.E., Acupuncture compared vrith 33~r

cent nitrous oxide

for dental analgesia:a sensol~ydecisiontheory evaluation~Anest-he-

sio}~gy, 42 (1975) 532--537. Clark pain

 

Clark

287.

Clark, W.C. and Mehl, L,

A sensor~

 

~x on drs, various response criteria, (197i) 202--212. Clark, W.C. and Yang, J.C., Acupunctural anal~,~esia?Evaluation bysignal detecd0n theory, Science, 184 (1974) 1096--1098. Cross, D.V., Some technical notes on psychoplysical sc~[i~g. In: H. Moskowitz, B. Scharf and J.C. Stevens (Eds.), Sensation and N:easuremen;~: Papers in Honor of S.S.

Stevens, Reidel, Dordrecht, 1974, pp. 23--36.

 

10

Dawson, W.E. and Brinker, R.P., Validation of ratio scales of opimon by multi- modality matching, Percept. Psychophys., 5 (1971) 41;3--417.

11

Dawson, W.E. and Mirando, M.A., Sensory-mgdality opinion scale for individual aubjects, Percept. Psychophys., 17 (1975) 596--600.

12

Dubuisson, D. and Melzack, R., Classification of clinica| pain descriptors by multiple group discriminant analysis

Galanter, E., The direct m

Amer. J.

Psychol., 75 (1962) 208--220.

14

Guilford, J.P., Psychometric Methods, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1954, 597 pp.

15

Lane, H.L., Catania, A.C. and Stevens, S.S., Voice level: autophonic scale, perceived loudness, and ~he effects of sidetone, J. acoust. Soc. Amer., 33(1961)I60--167.

16

Lodge, M., Cross, D., Tursky, B. and Tanenhaus, J., The psychophysical scaling and

validation of a political support scale, Amer. J. Polit. Sci., ]~9 (1975)

611-649.

17

Mehack, R., The McGiII Pain Questionnaire: major properties and scoring methods,

Pain, 1 (1975) 277--299.

 

18

Mehack, R. and Casey, K.L., Sensory, motivational, and central control determinants

of pain. In: D.R.

Kensha]o (Ed.), The Skin Senses, Thomas, Springfield, Ill., "1958, pp.

423--443.

19

IV~elzack, R. and Torgen;on, W S., On the language of pain, Anesthesiology, 34 (1971)

50--59.

20

P~rln~ , ~

T

, Relatmnb"

e~ween_

caregory-rating and magnitude estimatiol~.J"udgments of

occupational prestige, Amer. J. Ysychol., 76 (1963) 395--403.

 

21

Stevens, S.S.~ hsues in psychophysical measurement, Psychol. Rev., 78 (1971)426--

450.

22

Stevens, S.S., Psychophysics. Introduction to its Perceptual, Neural and Social Pros- pects, Wiley, New York, 1975, 329 pp.

23

Stevens, S.S. and Galanter, E.H., Ratio scales and category scales for a dozen percep- ~aal continua, J° exp. Psychol., 54 (1957)377--411.

24

.~teve~s, S.S. and Greenbaum, H,B., Regression effect in psychophysical judgement, Percept. Psychophys., I (1966) 439--446.

25

Stevens, S.S. and Guira¢,, M., Subjective scaling of length and area and the matching

of length to loudness and brightness,J. exp. Psychol., 66 (1963) 177--186.

26 Stevens, J.Co and Mack, J.D., Scales of apparent force, J. exp. Psychol., 58 (1959)

405--413.

27 Teght~oonia~, MoA.o The judgment of size,Amer J Ps chol, 78 (1965) 392--402

28 Tursky, B., q~%e development of a pain perception profile:a psychophysical approach. In: M° Weisenberg and B° Tu~sky (Edsl),Pain: New Perspectivesin Therapy a~d Re- search,Plenum ~ress,New Yo~:k,197~, pp. 171--194.