Dear Dr. Pinter and others,
A comprehensive critical review that argues that "The human being is
NOT a Shannon communication channel" does not exist in print, to my
knowledge. And no editor is going to allow such a paper to be
published, because there are too many prominent people who stand to
lose if their misinterpretations are made public. Some of those
people are senior editors of well-known journals. There are,
however, a number of published papers that question whether the use
of information-transmission measures in psychology was really useful:
Cronbach, L.J. (1955) On the non-rational application of
information measures in psychology. In: Information theory in
psychology (pp. 14-30), ed. H. Quastler. Glencoe, Illinois: The Free
Luce, R.D. (2003) Whatever happened to information theory in
psychology? Rev. Gen. Psych. 7, 183-188.
Gregory, R.L. (1980) Whatever happened to information theory? (2)
Perception, 9, 489-492.
Laming, D. (1973) Mathematical Psychology. Academic Press, NY.
Ashby, F.G. (1995). Resurrecting information theory. The American
Journal of Psychology, 108, 609-614.
A outstanding (and unfairly ignored) paper that deals decisively
with the issue of what "informational" absolute judgment experiments
actually measure is:
Siegel, W. (1972) Memory effects in the method of absolute
judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 94, 121-131.
- Lance Nizami PhD, Decatur, GA 30030
In a message dated 2/26/2009 11:30:22 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, andzsinszan@xxxxxxxxx
Dear Lance Nizami,
What you wrote regarding Information Theory is quite interesting to
me, as I daily meet people doing automatic speech recognition, whom
are really difficulty to convince that there is life beyond
information theory and Markov chains.
Can you please give us some references that argues that "The human
being is NOT a Shannon communication channel".
Or at least focusing on the controversial relation between perception
and information theory.
I appreciate your help.
On Wed, Feb 25, 2009 at 1:44 AM, Iftikhar Riaz (Lance) Nizami
> I did my Master's on this subject, and had to chance to read
> the rest of the literature in depth. Information theory as
> psychology, as popularized by Attneave after Garner & Hake, has
> all to do with transmission of anything. When applied to
> absolute judgment (identification) experiments, for example, it is
> alternative measure of short-term sensory memory. Which has
nothing to do
> with Claude Shannon's "general communications system". In your
> capacity is probably what the analysis will indicate. I am
> anyone uses the Garner-Hake information approach anymore;
> psychologists (Duncan Luce, Donald Laming, Sandy MacRae, etc.)
> its severe limitations years ago and abandoned it. So
> acoustics users like Neff and Lutfi. The human being is NOT a
> Shannon communication channel. Granted, the measures that result
> processing the confusion matrix are covariance measures of a
sort. In that
> case, ordinary covariance measures may provide a more meaningful
> analyzing your data. In response to your question, then, none of
> TRANS/INPUT or TRANS/TI are appropriate measures for your purposes.
> Information theory doesn't work that way. Attneave got the math
> but that had already been done; but Attneave's interpretations
> & Hake) were all dead wrong. - Lance Nizami BSc (Physics) MSc
> Engineering) PhD (Psychophysics), Decatur, GA 30030
> In a message dated 2/24/2009 4:54:12 A.M. Eastern Standard Time,
> caro_jacquier@xxxxxxxx writes:
> Dear members,
> I would like to analyse phonetic feature transmission (especially
> and place of articulation of french plosive consonants) on the
> individual confusion matrices. My study is about compressed speech
> perception in dyslexic adults.
> I have already downloaded the software for information transfer
> analysis (Stuart Rosen ) and I have run the analyses (on 32
> My first question is: which value is the more relevant in the
> TRANS/INPUT or TRANS/TI) ?
> My second question is about individual confusion matrices: Do I
have to do
> one analyse per subject ?
> I hope that someone could help me.
> Thank you very much.
> Best regards,
> A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!
A Good Credit Score is 700 or Above. See yours in just 2 easy steps!