Retrospective: Towards a Clarion Model of Raven's Matrices

I presented a progress report about my dissertation research at my department’s weekly Issues in Cognitive Science Talk Series on 2019-12-11. You can watch the full talk here.

Here are some corrections/comments:

  • At several points, I mention a publication defining the format, but there is no reference to it in the slides, so here it is: Penrose, S. & Raven, J. (1936). A new series of perceptual tests: preliminary communication. British Journal of Medical Psychology, 16(2), 97-104. DOI: 10.1111/j.2044-8341.1936.tb00690.x
  • Starting at 40:50 I talk about whether RPM items have formally validated correct answers. I mention that the creators of RPM stipulate that each matrix should have only one valid answer, and that’s true (Penrose & Raven, 1936). However I later say that ‘they’ claim the answer set could be selected so as to enforce this constraint. That’s not correct. What I should have said is that it’s possible to select the alternative set so as to resolve ambiguities. This has come up in discussion at least a few times, and I seem to recall reading about it, but I haven’t tracked down those references.

Published by Can Serif Mekik

I am a Cognitive Science PhD Student at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute working with Prof. Ron Sun. I specialize in computational psychology: I build computational models of psychological processes in various experimental contexts in order to gain a deeper understanding of the underlying mechanisms.

%d bloggers like this: