Each of these .mat files contains 4 variables: * n = number of objects * labs = string array of labels for the objects * s = n x n symmetric matrix of normalised pairwise similarities between the objects * d = n x n symmetric matrix of normalised pairwise proximities between the objects * From research described in Shepard, R. N., Kilpatrick, D. W., & Cunningham, J. P. (1975). The internal representation of numbers. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 82-138, with thanks to Josh Tenenbaum. * Human judgments of the numbers 0-9 [abstractnumbers.mat ] * From research reported in Kuennapas, T., & Janson, A-J. (1969). Multidimensional Similarity of Letters. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 28, 3-12. * Auditory confusions of 25 letters (all excluding 'o') and the numbers 0-9 [] * From research reported in Roethlisberger, F. J., & Dickson, W. J. (1939). Management and the worker. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. * A sociologist's judgment of the relationships between 14 bank wiring workers [] * From research reported in Ekman, G. (1954). Dimensions of color vision. The Journal of Psychology, 38, 467-474. * Human judgments of 14 colours, specified by their wavelengths [] * From raw data presented in Romesburg, H. C. (1984). Cluster analysis for researchers. Belmont, CA: Lifetime Learning Publications. * Voting patterns of 14 members of congress on environmental bills [] * From research reported in Glushko, R. J. (1975). Pattern goodness and redundancy revisited: Multidimensional scaling and hierarchical cluster analysis. Perception & Psychophysics, 17(2), 158-162. * Human judgments of 17 dot patterns [] * From research reported in Huba, G. L., Wingard, J. A., & Bentler, P. M. (1981). A comparison of two latent variable causal models for adolescent drug use. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(1), 180-193. * Reported adolescent use of 13 drug types [] * From research reported in Gati, I., & Tversky, A. (1982). Representations of qualitative and quantitative dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8(2), 325-340. * Human judgments of 16 drawings of flowerpots [] * From research reported in Tversky, A., & Hutchinson, J. W. (1986). Nearest Neighbor Analysis of Psychological Spaces. Psychological Review, 93(1), 3-22. * Human judgments of 21 fruits [] * From research reported in Gibson, E. J., Osser, H., Schiff, W., & Smith, J. (1963). An analysis of critical features of letters, tested by a confusion matrix. Cooperative Research Project No. 639, U.S. Office of Education. * Kindergarten children's judgment of perceptual similarity of the 26 capital letters [] * From research reported in Rothkopf, E. Z. (1957). A measure of stimulus similarity and errors in some paired-associate learning tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 94-101. * Confusion of Morse code numerals [] * Confusion of Morse code numerals and letters [] * From research reported in Miller, G. A., & Nicely, P. E. (1955). An analysis of perceptual confusions among some English consonants. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 27, 338-352. * Auditory confusion of 16 consonant phonemes [] * From research reported in Johnson, E. J., & Tversky, A. (1984). Representations of Perceptions of Risks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113(1), 55-70. * Human judgments of 18 risks [] * From research described in Chapter 15 of Borg, I., & Lingoes, J. (1987). Multidimensional similarity structure analysis. New York: Springer Verlag. * Human judgments of 16 rectangles [] The following .mat files also contain a variable sigma_emp, which gives an empirical estimate of the precision of the similarity and proximity data: * From research reported in Robinson, J. P., & Hefner, R (1967). Multidimensional Differences in Public and Academic Perceptions of Nations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7(3), 251-259. * Human judgments (in 1967) of 17 countries [] * From research reported in Kruschke, J. K. (1993). Human category learning: Implications for backpropagation models. Connection Science, 5, 3-36. * Human judgments of 8 rectangles with interior line segments [rectangles_kruschke.mat ] * From research reported in Rosenberg, S., & Kim, M. P. (1975). The Method of Sorting as a Data-Generating Procedure in Multivariate Research. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 10, 489-502. * Human judgments of 15 kinship terms [kinship_rosenbergkim.mat ] * From research reported in Romney, A. K., Brewer, D. D., & Batchelder, W. H. (1993). Predicting Clustering from Semantic Structure. Psychological Science, 4(1), 28-34, with thanks to Devon Brewer. * Human judgments of 21 bird names [] * Human judgments of 21 clothing names [] * Human judgments of 21 different clothing names [] * Human judgments of 21 fish names [] * Human judgments of 21 fruit names [] * Human judgments of 21 different fruit names [] * Human judgments of 21 furniture names [] * Human judgments of 21 different furniture names [] * Human judgments of 21 semantically unrelated words [] * Human judgments of 21 sport names [] * Human judgments of 21 tool names [] * Human judgments of 21 toy names [] * Human judgments of 21 vegetable names [] * Human judgments of 21 different vegetable names [] * Human judgments of 21 vehicle names [] * Human judgments of 21 different vehicle names [] * Human judgments of 21 weapon names [] * Human judgments of 21 different weapon names [] * Mark Steyvers kindly provided the following data sets, and I have yet to chase up references: * Human judgments of 9 lines of different lengths [] * Human judgments of 60 faces [] * Human judgments of 7 'morphed' faces [] * Human judgments of 9 shapes varying in size and angle [] * Human judgments of 24 bodies varying in "affect and body size" [] * From research reported in Heaps, C., & Handel, S. (1999). Similarity and Features of Natural Textures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(2), 299-320. * Human judgments of 30 Brodatz textures [] * Human judgments of 24 MIT textures [] * From the research described in Navarro, D.J., & Lee, M.D. (submitted). Common and distinctive features in stimulus representation: A modified version of the contrast model. Manuscript submitted for publication. * Human judgments of 10 cartoon faces [] * Human forced-choice judgments of 16 countries in a similarity condition [] and a dissimilarity condition [] * From (as yet) unreported research in my lab * Human judgments of 21 animals (presented as pictures on a 5 point scale) [] * Human judgments of 21 animals (presented as pictures on an 11 point scale) [] * Human judgments of 21 animals (presented as words on a 5 point scale) [] * Human judgments of 21 animals (presented as words on an 11 point scale) [] * Human judgments of 25 faces (5 point scale) [] * Human judgments of 25 faces (11 point scale) [] * Here are two bitmap files with the face stimuli [, ]