Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Author(s): H. M. Johnson
Source: The American Journal of Psychology, Vol. 36, No. 4 (Oct., 1925), pp. 601-614
Published by: University of Illinois Press
Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1413914
Accessed: 05-09-2019 13:03 UTC
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms
University of Illinois Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend
access to The American Journal of Psychology
This content downloaded from 54.228.195.183 on Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:03:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
THE DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT
OF ATTENTION
This content downloaded from 54.228.195.183 on Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:03:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
602 JOHNSON
This content downloaded from 54.228.195.183 on Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:03:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF ATTENTION 603
FIGURE I
This content downloaded from 54.228.195.183 on Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:03:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
604 JOHNSON
This content downloaded from 54.228.195.183 on Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:03:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF ATTENTION 605
2"The first flash, the 'ready' signal, was set to occur 3 sec., and the sec-
ond, the 'now' signal, I Y sec. before the occurrence of the stimulus. As
timed by the Hipp chronoscope they occurred 3265 =i 32.6r and I853 ==
I .8r respectively before the stimulus" (1, 130 f.). Italics are mine. In (3)
it is alleged that I committed an inaccuracy in using the above values.
My review does contain a copyist's substitution of 'Geissler tube' for 'a
2.9 volt electric globe (sic).' For this I tender my regrets.
This content downloaded from 54.228.195.183 on Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:03:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
606 JOHNSON
permitted of direct computation) that the correlation rxy was of the order
of -o.25,3 subject to a probable error of about 0.025. With this finding
one of the original authors has since expressed himself (S) as being "in sub-
stantial agreement."
The import of this result is critical. While a correlation which is ten
times its probable error is not to be attributed to chance, its significance
should be very clear. The quadratic mean of the deviations of the empiri-
cal values of Y from the values calculated from the regression-equation is
the empirical values of Y from their mean My. Since in this case rxy
-0.25, and f/I-r 2 -o.97, it follows that the precision with which a
This content downloaded from 54.228.195.183 on Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:03:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF ATTENTION 607
This content downloaded from 54.228.195.183 on Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:03:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
608 JOHNSON
out discriminating between those which were inherent and those which
were imposed. The resulting coefficient reveals little more than the fact
that no large and uncompensated errors were made in the arithmetic.4
The authors, however, make the following assertions.
(I) "The present experiment shows that reaction-time is closely cor-
related with clearness" (2, 207, footnote).
(2) "We may conclude at any rate that, under these conditions of
training, attributive clearness may be measured by the average duration
and the mean variation of the simple sensory reaction" (207).
(3) "These data6 show that the rate of a simple sensory reaction and
its degree of precision as expressed by the m. v. are both (under our con-
ditions) reliable means of determining the degree of clearness. It therefore
follows, since attention itself is measurable in terms of clearness, that these
objective measurements also give us a reliable index of attention" (206.
Italics are mine).
In the opinion of the several professional mathematicians who have
favored me with a critical examination of the foregoing analysis and of my
former review, the argument which I have just given is sufficient to make
it clear that the propositions in the first and second quotations, and the
first proposition in the third, are not valid inferences from the results of
the author's statistical treatment. Furthermore, the insignificantly small
value (-0.25) of the product-moment coefficient of correlation between
the gross measures of time and clearness plainly contradicts the authors'
assertion that "reaction-time is closely correlated with clearness," and its
corollary, that attributive clearness may be reliably inferred from "the
rate of a simple sensory reaction."
This content downloaded from 54.228.195.183 on Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:03:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF ATTENTION 609
'average duration' are not denoted, and since such expressions are so hab-
itually used by readers in the unrestricted sense that their reaction-habits
are not likely to be disrupted by the work they are likely to expend on a
single paper. And, thirdly, the assertion, taken literally, is irrelevant to
a number of passages in the article with which it was connected. Some of
these passages are quoted above.
On the other hand, if the term 'average duration' be taken in the unre-
stricted sense, the assertion quoted is certainly false, for the data from
which it was derived actually prove the contrary. This disproof is im-
plied in the fact that the correlation between the gross measures is insigni-
ficantly small. I have not seen, thus far, a discussion of the relationship
between the coefficient of correlation, rxy, between the gross measures of
X and Y and the coefficient of correlation, rm xm between fractional means
of simultaneous values of X and Y taken at random. I shall therefore
give, without claim to priority, an original proof that ry = rm my, which
should finally dispose of the matter.
Definitions
(i) v, any particular gross measurement made on a variable quantity,
such as X or Y.
(2) N, the total number of such measurements, taken at random. In
the reasoning which follows N is assumed to be large.
(3) M = (I/N)Nv, the general empirical mean, which, from the
value of N, and the manner of sampling, is assumed to be practically
equivalent to the 'ideal' mean.6
(4) f, the total number of groups in which the N measurements may
be fractionated.
(5) n, the number of measurements included in any fractional group.'
(6) m = (/n)onv, the mean of the measurements included in any
fractional group.
(7) A = v - m, the deviation of any measurement from the fractional
mean.
6It should be noted that the restrictions on definitions (2) and (3) are
implied in most applications of the rules of probability to empirical data.
7In the treatment which follows it is assumed that the several simul-
taneous values of n are equal to each other. This method of fractionation
is unnecessary to the proof. If a different method be used the relations
here exhibited would still hold, provided the proper weighting factors were
employed where necessary.
This content downloaded from 54.228.195.183 on Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:03:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
6Io JOHNSON
V/(i/N)oN~ (y_y)2
This content downloaded from 54.228.195.183 on Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:03:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF ATTENTION 611
ry rmxmy
in case amy: aY=mx : x,
which remains to be shown.
By definition (8),
d2=A2 + 2 (m - M) A + (m-M)2
and by summation
on d2 = Z nA2 + 2 (m - M) 2n A + n (m - M)'
The second term in the right member being equal to zero, division by n
yields an expression which by definition (9) may be written
(i/n) d = s + (m - M)2
By summation between o and f, the last expression gives
(i/n)Sf Sn d2 = 2f 2 + 2f (m - M)'
which upon division by f becomes
(I/N) 2N d2 = (I/f) zf 82 + (I/f) 2;f (m -M)2
By definition (Io) the left member is v2, and by definition (I ) the second
term of the right member is a2m; hence the last equation becomes
2 = (i/f) Sf' 2 + r2m (IV)
By definition (12), and subject to the restriction on definiti
empirical value of s be unknown its most probable valu
hence,
s2' = (n - I) 2m,
s22 = (n - I) am,... and
s2f = (n -i)r2m
Summation and division yield
(I/f) Zf s2 = (n - I) o%
By substitution and collection in (IV)
n2 = n.e,2m
whence r2m = 2/n
and rm = /a
This content downloaded from 54.228.195.183 on Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:03:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
6I2 JOHNSON
Reverting to equations (II) and (III), one may note that since
?my : y = m : ax
whence
rmy- Q. E. D.
Geometrically the facts may be repre
of X be plotted against the correspon
values of mx be plotted against the cor
systems of points will lie within two sim
axes bear the ratios of -/ni I. The effe
of gross measurements taken at random,
themselves, is the same as the effect of
multiplying the two units of measurem
case, the resulting coefficient of correl
between the gross measures.
It follows from the above exposition th
tion %/I - rxy
mYmy
and -/I - r2 are also
This content downloaded from 54.228.195.183 on Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:03:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
DEFINITION AND MEASUREMENT OF ATTENTION 6I3
are some measurements paired with times longer than the average time
associated with the highest class of clearnesses, "95." The times within a
range of 0.064 sec. are associated with every grade of clearness reported.
Obviously, then, the most representative value of clearness, Y, associated
with a particular value of time, X, and a fortiori with n times whose mean
is mx, is my.
It is admitted that these ranges, as well as other characteristic features
of the assembled data, have been estimated from parameters computed by
approximate methods, which are strictly applicable only to normal distri-
butions. But the empirical data, in the form of a scatter-table or scatter-
graph, were not made available-a fact that has caused me much regret.
1?Even the distributed means of times, despite their perfect correlation
with clearness, lack in some cases the indicative value which the authors
claimed for them. The highest correlation reported was for the results
obtained with the tuning-fork as distractor, in Table I. Its value is given
as [-] o.999. The two highest classes of clearness contain 98% of the
measurements. The difference between the distributed averages of times
is but 1.3 times its probable error, and in absolute units is but 0.0013 sec.
This difference is smaller than the limit of accuracy within which the Hipp
chronoscope can measure the time required for a free body to fall from a
constant height.
In the procedure used to get these correlations there are some peculi-
arities which are interesting though not relevant to the main question,
since the procedure itself is fundamentally invalid. The Pearson formula
was applied to distributions which contained too few classes to render it
applicable. (In the instance cited but two classes were used.) This fact
by itself insures a large coefficient. In some instances classes which de-
viated widely from the central class were eliminated because of the small
number of measurements which lay within them.
This content downloaded from 54.228.195.183 on Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:03:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
614 JOHNSON
This content downloaded from 54.228.195.183 on Thu, 05 Sep 2019 13:03:25 UTC
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms