{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021400778210116732, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0024319066147859923, 'mean_word_length': 5.158682634730539, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Additivity and interaction between size ratio and response category in the comparison of size-discrepant shapes.

In Experiment 1, subjects made same-different judgments to pairs of shapes that could differ (irrelevantly) in size and in which different pairs combined distinct shapes. Size discrepancy had an effect both on same and different responses. However, the effect on different responses was not monotonic across size discrepancies. It is argued that this nonmonotonicity was produced by a form of bias acting to slow different responses for same-sized pairs. Consistent with the proposed bias account, the nonmonotonic size-discrepancy effect on different trials was eliminated in Experiment 2, in which trials were blocked by size ratio. In Experiment 3, subjects performed a task similar to that in Experiments 1 and 2. However, additional visual information was added inside the bounding contour of the shapes, and this information was either the same or different across shapes. The match between within-contour information across shapes (whether same or different) was varied orthogonally with whether the bounding contours of the shapes were the same or different. In this experiment subjects decided whether the bounding contours of the shapes were the same or different, while ignoring the added information within the contours. When the added information matched across the two shapes, same responses were facilitated relative to when the added information mismatched. The converse occurred for different responses. This effect was more pronounced when the shapes were shown at the same size than when the shapes were at different sizes. In general, the results suggest that (a) size discrepancy affects some perceptual operations that are preliminary to shape matching, and (b) bias mechanisms can play an important role in shape-matching experiments in which the shapes can be shown in different sizes. The interaction of two processes--size scaling and bias--can account for these and hitherto contradictory results in the literature.