Here are the images sorted by the CNN feature entropy:
[none of these look very intuitive to me]
Here are the images sorted by the wavelet feature entropy:
Here are the images sorted by the color feature entropy:
Here are the images sorted by the gist feature entropy:
Here are the correlations between all measures.
Conceptual complexity ratings are weakly correlated with wavelet and color, though these are only mariginal. Gist and color are highly correlated.
Next we look at whether the ratios of these measures predict the linguistic complexity bias. In particular, whether the ratio of the two alternatives in the mapping task predicts the bias to map the long word onto the more complex object.
Below are histograms of the complexity ratios (simple/complex) for each trial for all 6 complexity metrics. Visual features look skewed, so we try taking the log. Here are the logged ratios:
These ratios are somewhat correlated (bottom is in log space), though this isn’t entirely fair because a lot of these points are non-independent (need to aggergate).
Below are plots of the effect sizes as a function of the complexity ratios.
Below are the same plots in log space (not really any different).
The correlation between the effect size and color ratio is reliable. Gist is marginal.
cor.test(de$effect_size, de$color.Mratio)
##
## Pearson's product-moment correlation
##
## data: de$effect_size and de$color.Mratio
## t = -2.783, df = 13, p-value = 0.01554
## alternative hypothesis: true correlation is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -0.8555 -0.1437
## sample estimates:
## cor
## -0.611
cor.test(de$effect_size, de$l.color.Mratio)
##
## Pearson's product-moment correlation
##
## data: de$effect_size and de$l.color.Mratio
## t = -2.403, df = 13, p-value = 0.03191
## alternative hypothesis: true correlation is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -0.83082 -0.05912
## sample estimates:
## cor
## -0.5546
cor.test(de$effect_size, de$l.gist.Mratio)
##
## Pearson's product-moment correlation
##
## data: de$effect_size and de$l.gist.Mratio
## t = 2.093, df = 13, p-value = 0.05652
## alternative hypothesis: true correlation is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## -0.01374 0.80682
## sample estimates:
## cor
## 0.5021
Gist is correlated with conceptual and RT measures of complexity. CNN is marginal for both.
Here are the ratio histograms.
And, here are the ratio histograms in log space
Here are the ratio plots.
Below are the same plots in log space.
The correlation is reliable for both wavelet and CNN.
cor.test(de$effect_size, de$l.wavelet.Mratio)
##
## Pearson's product-moment correlation
##
## data: de$effect_size and de$l.wavelet.Mratio
## t = 2.683, df = 13, p-value = 0.01878
## alternative hypothesis: true correlation is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 0.1221 0.8495
## sample estimates:
## cor
## 0.597
cor.test(de$effect_size, de$l.CNN.Mratio)
##
## Pearson's product-moment correlation
##
## data: de$effect_size and de$l.CNN.Mratio
## t = 2.436, df = 13, p-value = 0.03001
## alternative hypothesis: true correlation is not equal to 0
## 95 percent confidence interval:
## 0.06662 0.83314
## sample estimates:
## cor
## 0.5598