Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 69 references

Quantum Measurement, Entanglement and the Warping Mechanism of Human Perception

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A quantum measurement intrinsically contains the warping mechanism of categorical perception.

desk verdict Careful math, but the advertised theorem is false: the warping is location-dependent, not category-dependent, so the paper proves a smaller and less interesting statement than it claims. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.00777 v1 pith:TJZTU7TT submitted 2025-05-01 q-bio.NC quant-ph

Diederik Aerts , Jonito Aerts Arguëlles , Sandro Sozzo This is my paper · ORCID
classification q-bio.NCquant-ph
keywords categoricalperceptionquantummeasurementBlochsphereFubini-Studymetrictracedistancewarpingqubitperceptualsimilarity
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper sets out to prove that the measurement process of quantum mechanics—the collapse of a state onto an eigenstate—already contains the distortion of distances that psychologists call categorical perception. The argument casts pure quantum states as stimuli, points on the Bloch sphere of a qubit, and the decohered density states that appear before collapse as percepts, points inside the sphere. Distances between stimuli are measured with the Fubini–Study arc metric, and distances between percepts with the trace-class metric, which for a qubit equals half the Euclidean distance. Under the measurement map, pairs of stimuli in the same category contract while pairs in different categories dilate; in the paper's light/dark example a stimulus separation of one third of the maximum becomes a percept separation of one quarter for two Light stimuli and one half for a Light–Dark pair. If this is right, the clumping that creates color and speech categories is not a psychological add-on but a structural feature of quantum measurement itself.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the extended Bloch model of quantum measurement, in which a measurement is an elastic stretched between two diametrically opposite outcome states and the state of the system is a ball on the Bloch sphere. The first stage of measurement, decoherence, projects the ball orthogonally onto the elastic, turning a pure state on the surface into a mixed density state in the interior; the second stage, collapse, breaks the elastic and sends the ball to one of the two outcomes. The warping appears in the metric change between these two stages: pure states are measured by the Fubini–Study arc length on the sphere's surface, while the decohered percept states are measured by the trace-class distance inside the sphere, which for a qubit is half the Euclidean distance. The same decohered states also arise as the partial trace of the entangled state of the measured system and the measurement device, so the warping is tied to entanglement with the measuring context.

What would settle it

Take the three light/dark stimuli at polar angles $0$, $\pi/3$, and $2\pi/3$ on a perceptual continuum, collect human similarity ratings after a categorization response, and compare the two pairs. The paper's geometry predicts that the same-category pair $0$–$\pi/3$ shrinks from $1/3$ to $1/4$ of maximal distance while the cross-category pair $\pi/3$–$2\pi/3$ grows from $1/3$ to $1/2$; observing roughly equal perceived distances for the two pairs (a ratio near $1$ instead of $2$) would rule out the claimed mechanism.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a quantum measurement, described in the extended Bloch model, warps distances in exactly the manner of categorical perception. The measurement is represented by an elastic stretched between two antipodal eigenstates, here the Light and Dark outcomes; the initial pure state falls orthogonally onto the elastic and decoheres to a mixed state on the axis, and only then does the elastic break and select an outcome. The paper identifies the proper distance for pure states as the Fubini–Study arc distance $\gamma(\psi_1,\psi_2)=\arccos|\langle\psi_1|\psi_2\rangle|$ and the proper distance for the decohered density states as the trace distance. For the qubit with polar angles $0$, $\pi/3$, and $2\pi/3$, the stimulus distances between the pairs $0$–$\pi/3$ and $\pi/3$–$2\pi/3$ are both $1/3$ of the maximum; after decoherence the same-category pair $0$–$\pi/3$ sits at distance $1/4$ (contraction), while the cross-category pair $\pi/3$–$2\pi/3$ sits at distance $1/2$ (dilation). The paper concludes that the warping mechanism of categorical perception is structurally present in quantum collapse.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands or falls on treating the decohered mixed state that exists just before the final collapse as the percept, and on measuring perceptual similarity by the trace distance between those mixed states. If what a person consciously perceives is instead the final collapsed pure state, the contraction and dilation are not there to observe.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any model that represents a decision as a quantum measurement will automatically include categorical-perception-like distortion: stimuli closer to a category center are pulled together, and stimuli on opposite sides of a boundary are pushed apart, without adding a separate psychological parameter.
  • The light/dark qubit yields sharp quantitative predictions: at polar angles $0$, $\pi/3$, and $2\pi/3$, the perceived distance ratio for same-category versus cross-category pairs is $3/4$ versus $3/2$ of the original stimulus spacing, a testable signature.
  • Because the percept states are the partial traces of the entangled system-plus-device state, the warping is present before the final collapse; category structure is not created by the outcome selection but by the coupling to the measurement context.
  • Changing the measurement axis changes which pairs contract and dilate, so the same physical stimulus can fall into different categories when measured along a different axis; categories are contextual rather than intrinsic to the stimulus.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The metric choice is doing the heavy lifting: if one measured stimulus distances with the trace distance on the sphere instead of the Fubini–Study arc, the contraction and dilation would disappear. A fair empirical test should first establish which metric human similarity follows.
  • The same geometry suggests a general rule: for any pair of pure states whose shortest arc crosses the measurement equator, decoherence dilates the distance, while pairs entirely on one side contract. This implies category boundaries are properties of the measurement question, not of the stimuli alone, and could be probed by reorienting the categorization task.
  • The paper's example could be turned into an experiment on a synthetic color continuum: collect pairwise similarity ratings before and after a Light/Dark naming task and check whether the ratio of within- to across-category distances approaches the predicted $3/4$ versus $3/2$; such an experiment is not reported in the paper.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that the quantum measurement process, understood through the extended Bloch model, contains the warping mechanism of categorical perception. Pure states on the Bloch sphere play the role of stimuli, fully decohered pre-collapse density states play the role of percepts, and the passage from the Fubini–Study metric on pure states (Eq. 41) to the trace distance on decohered density states (Eq. 44) is claimed to contract within-category distances and dilate between-category distances. The manuscript develops the qubit measurement in detail, derives the Born probabilities and the partial-trace decoherence state A′, and illustrates the claimed effect with three states at polar angles π/3, 2π/3, and 0, with Light and Dark at the poles and the category boundary at the equator.

Significance. The individual mathematical steps are mostly correct and clearly presented: the Bloch-sphere derivation of the Born rule, the partial-trace calculation, and the numerical values in Figure 4 are accurate. The paper is also transparent in not fitting parameters to psychological data. However, the central claim—that the model reproduces the defining signature of categorical perception, with within-category distances contracted and between-category distances dilated—is false under the paper's own metrics. The warping is a location-dependent distortion, not a category-dependent one. A corrected version of the result would be a much weaker statement about the geometry of the Bloch sphere, rather than a proof that quantum measurement contains categorical perception.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 4, Eqs. (41) and (44)] The claimed universal contraction/dilation is false. For two pure states with polar angles θ1 and θ2, the ratio of percept distance to stimulus distance under the paper's own metrics is R(θ1,θ2)=(π/2)|cosθ1−cosθ2|/|θ1−θ2|. This ratio depends on the location of the pair on the sphere, not on whether the pair crosses the category boundary at θ=π/2. For close pairs, R→(π/2)sinθ, which exceeds 1 for θ>arcsin(2/π)≈39.5°. Thus two states both in Light near the equator, for example θ1=0.4π and θ2=0.45π, have R≈1.53, so the percepts are more different than the stimuli, directly contradicting the abstract's statement that 'stimuli belonging to the same category are perceived as more similar.' Conversely, the between-category pair θ1=0 and θ2=π/2 has R=1, so it is not dilated at all. Section 4 therefore provides hand-picked examples, not the claimed general mechanism.
  2. [Section 4, Eq. (44)] The identification of the fully decohered pre-collapse mixed state A′ as the percept is an additional modeling assumption, not a consequence of quantum mechanics. If percepts are instead identified with the final collapsed pure states Aup and Adown, the trace distance between any two percepts is either 0 or 1, and no graded contraction or dilation occurs. Since the warping claim depends entirely on this identification, the paper needs either an empirical argument for the mixed-state percept or a derivation from a concrete psychological measurement scheme; neither is provided.
  3. [Section 3, decoherence and collapse discussion] The manuscript correctly distinguishes decoherence from collapse, noting that 'the collapse part of the measurement must still occur after the decoherence process.' Yet the categorical-perception analysis stops at the decohered state A′ and never uses the collapse. This means the claimed warping is produced by the first half of the measurement process only, so the title's and abstract's claim that the quantum measurement process (with its collapse) contains the warping mechanism is not supported by the derivation given.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Figure 4 caption and surrounding text] The caption says 'categorical reception' instead of 'categorical perception,' and the text contains typos such as 'respectiveky' after Eq. (47), 'asimuthal' in Section 4, and the heading 'Summery' before the summary of Section 3.
  2. [Eq. (35)] The displayed partial-trace calculation mixes tensor-product notation with matrix elements in a confusing way; for example, expressions such as ⟨up|up⟩⊗|0,φ⟩⟨0,φ| should be simplified to |0,φ⟩⟨0,φ| after tracing out the device. Please rewrite the formula with unambiguous matrix notation.
  3. [References] The reference list contains repeated typographical errors in author names, such as 'Collier at al.' and 'Medin at al.', and the entries for Rosch are inconsistent between 'Rosch' and 'Rosch Heider'; these should be standardized.
  4. [Eq. (42)] The quantity γ(ψ1,ψ2)=arccos|⟨ψ1|ψ2⟩| is the Fubini–Study angle, and the normalization by 1/π in Eq. (41) is an additional convention; please state explicitly that the normalized distance is the convention used throughout.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the warping is computed from standard Fubini-Study and trace metrics, and the extended-Bloch self-citations are not load-bearing for the central derivation.

full rationale

The claimed derivation is self-contained at the level of equations. Section 3 computes the decohered pre-collapse density state from the entangled measurement state via the partial trace (Eqs. (31), (34), (36)); no categorical-perception datum enters this calculation. Section 4 then defines stimulus distance by the Fubini-Study arc distance (Eqs. (41)-(42)) and percept distance by the normalized trace distance between the diagonal density matrices (Eq. (44)), both standard, independently motivated metrics. The contraction/dilation ratios in the Light/Dark example follow by direct substitution of theta = 0, pi/3, 2pi/3; no fitted parameters are used, and no quantity of the target phenomenon is inserted into the formulas. The self-citations to the extended Bloch model (Aerts 1986; Aerts & Sassoli de Bianchi 2014) and to the authors' earlier quantization proposal (Aerts and Aerts Arguelles 2022) motivate the framework, but the mathematical steps needed for the warping are re-derived in the paper and do not reduce to those citations. A scientific weakness remains: the claimed categorical warping is illustrated by two selected pairs, and the model's ratio R = (pi/2)|cos(theta1)-cos(theta2)|/|theta1-theta2| is location-dependent rather than category-dependent, so within-category pairs near the equator can be dilated rather than contracted. That is a correctness or overstatement concern, not a circularity, because the equations are not constructed to force the categorical conclusion. Hence the score reflects only minor, non-load-bearing self-citation.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the extended Bloch model, the role assignment of stimuli and percepts, and the choice of the equator as the category boundary. These are all modeling assumptions rather than consequences of quantum mechanics alone. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (2)
  • Angles of the three example states = θ_A=π/3, θ_B=2π/3, θ_C=0
    Chosen by hand to produce a clean contraction/dilation example. The general warping pattern depends on the location of the pair, so this selection biases the illustration.
  • Normalisation constants of the two distance metrics = 1/π and 1/2
    The Fubini-Study distance in Eq. (41) is normalised to 1 by dividing by π, and the trace distance in Eq. (44) by dividing by 2. These normalisations determine the numerical ratios quoted as warping; different normalisations would change the apparent warping strength.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The extended Bloch model with a uniformly breaking elastic reproduces the Born probabilities of quantum mechanics
    Section 3 introduces the elastic model from Aerts (1986) and Aerts & Sassoli de Bianchi (2014). The uniform breaking hypothesis is a modeling assumption.
  • ad hoc to paper Pure states represent stimuli and decohered mixed states represent percepts in a measurement
    Section 4 assigns these roles explicitly; this identification is the bridge between quantum formalism and categorical perception and is not standard.
  • ad hoc to paper The category boundary between Light and Dark sits at the equator of the Bloch sphere
    Section 4 places Light at the North Pole and Dark at the South Pole, so the boundary is the equator. This choice fixes which pairs are 'same' or 'different' category.
  • domain assumption Fubini-Study is the natural metric for pure states and trace distance for density states
    Section 4 argues these are natural; they are standard choices in quantum information, but not the only possible metrics.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Quantum Measurement, Entanglement and the Warping Mechanism of Human Perception." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TJZTU7TT

@misc{pith2026250500777,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Quantum Measurement, Entanglement and the Warping Mechanism of Human Perception},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TJZTU7TT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.00777}
}
read the original abstract

We prove that the quantum measurement process contains the same warping mechanism that occurs in categorical perception, a phenomenon ubiquitous in human perception. This warping causes stimuli belonging to the same category to be perceived as more similar, while stimuli belonging to different categories are perceived as more different. As a result of a detailed study of the quantum measurement using the Bloch representation, we identify the natural metric for pure states, namely the Fubini Study metric, and the natural metric for density states, namely the trace class metric. The warping mechanism of categorical perception is then manifested, when the distances between pure states, playing the role of stimuli for the quantum measurement, are warped into the distances between density states, playing the role of percepts for quantum measurement. We work out the example of a two-dimensional quantum model, a qubit, with 'light' and 'dark' as the two eigenstates, and show how the typical contraction and dilation warping of human perception manifest themselves in this example of the quantum measurement model of light and dark.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.00777 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A representation of our extended Bloch model for a two-dimensional quantum entity. A little ball [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A three-dimensional representation of the Extended Bloch Model. The little ball is in point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Using the simple geometry of the Bloch sphere, we can recover the trace distance we calculated in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: We consider a situation where there are two names for colors, which we call [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Aerts, D. (1982). Description of many physical entities without the paradoxes encountered in quantum mechanics. Foundations of Physics 12 , pp. 1131-1170. doi: 10.1007/BF00729621

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00729621 1982

  2. [2]

    Aerts, D. (1986). A possible explanation of the probabilities of quantum mechanics. Journal of Mathematical Physics 27 , pp. 202-210. doi: 10.1063/1.527362

    work page doi:10.1063/1.527362 1986

  3. [3]

    Aerts, D. (1992). The construction of reality and its influence on the understanding of quantum structures. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 31 , pp. 1815-1837. doi: 10.1007/BF00678294

    work page doi:10.1007/bf00678294 1992

  4. [4]

    Aerts, D. (2009). Quantum structure in cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53 , pp. 314-348. doi: 10.1016/j.jmp.2009.04.005

    doi:10.1016/j.jmp.2009.04.005 2009

  5. [5]

    Aerts, D. (2009). Quantum particles as conceptual entities: A possible explanatory framework for quantum theory. Foundations of Science 14 , pp. 361-411. doi: 10.1007/s10699-009-9166-y

    doi:10.1007/s10699-009-9166-y 2009

  6. [6]

    and Aerts, S

    Aerts, D. and Aerts, S. (1995). Applications of quantum statistics in psychological studies of decision processes. Foundations of Science 1 , pp. 85-97. doi: 10.1007/BF00208726

    doi:10.1007/bf00208726 1995

  7. [7]

    and Aerts Argu\"elles, J

    Aerts, D. and Aerts Argu\"elles, J. (2022). Human perception as a phenomenon of quantization. Entropy 24, 1207. doi: 10.3390/e24091207

    work page doi:10.3390/e24091207 2022

  8. [8]

    and Beltran, L

    Aerts, D. and Beltran, L. (2020). Quantum Structure in Cognition: Human Language as a Boson Gas of Entangled Words. Foundations of Science 25 , pp. 755-802. doi: 10.1007/s10699-019-09633-4

    doi:10.1007/s10699-019-09633-4 2020

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    and Beltran, L

    Aerts, D. and Beltran, L. (2022a). Are words the quanta of human language? Extending the domain of quantum cognition. Entropy 24 , 6. doi: 10.3390/e24010006

    2022 doi

  2. [10]

    and Beltran, L

    Aerts, D. and Beltran, L. (2022b). A Planck Radiation and Quantization Scheme for Human Cognition and Language. Frontiers in Psychology 13, 850725. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.850725

    2022

  3. [11]

    and Veloz, T

    Aerts, D., Broekaert, J., Gabora, L. and Veloz, T. (2012). The guppy effect as interference. Quantum Interaction. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7620 , pp 36-47. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-35659-9_4

    2012 doi

  4. [12]

    Aerts, D and Gabora, L. (2005a). A theory of concepts and their combinations I: The structure of the sets of contexts and properties. Kybernetes 34 , pp. 167-191. doi: 10.1108/03684920510575799

    2005 doi

  5. [13]

    Aerts, D and Gabora, L. (2005b). A theory of concepts and their combinations II: A Hilbert space representation. Kybernetes 34 , pp. 192-221. doi: 10.1108/03684920510575807

    2005 doi

  6. [14]

    and Sassoli de Bianchi, M

    Aerts, D. and Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2014). The extended Bloch representation of quantum mechanics and the hidden-measurement solution to the measurement problem. Annals of Physics 351 , pp. 975-1025. doi: 10.1016/j.aop.2014.09.020. See also the Erratum: Annals of Physics 366...

    2014 doi

  7. [15]

    and Sassoli de Bianchi, M

    Aerts, D. and Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2015). The unreasonable success of quantum probability II: Quantum measurements as universal measurements. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 67 , pp. 76-90. doi: 10.1016/j.jmp.2015.05.001

    2015 doi

  8. [16]

    and Sassoli de Bianchi, M

    Aerts, D. and Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2016). The extended Bloch representation of quantum mechanics: Explaining superposition, interference, and entanglement. Journal of Mathematical Physics 57 . 122110. doi: 10.1063/1.4973356

    2016 doi

  9. [17]

    and Sassoli de Bianchi, M

    Aerts, D. and Sassoli de Bianchi, M. (2017). Universal Measurements: How to Free Three Birds in One Move . Singapore: World Scientific

    2017

  10. [18]

    and Veloz, T

    Aerts, D., Sassoli de Bianchi, M., Sozzo, S. and Veloz, T. (2020). On the conceptuality interpretation of quantum and relativity theories. Foundations of Science 25 , pp. 5–54. doi: 10.1007/s10699-018-9557-z

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    and Sozzo, S

    Aerts, D. and Sozzo, S. (2011). Quantum structure in cognition: Why and how concepts are entangled. Quantum Interaction QI2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science 7052 , pp. 116-127. doi: 10.1007/978-3-642-24971-6\_12

    2011 doi

  12. [20]

    and Sozzo, S

    Aerts, D. and Sozzo, S. (2014). Quantum entanglement in concept combinations. International Journal of Theoretical Physics 53 , pp. 3587–3603. doi: 10.1007/s10773-013-1946-z

    2014 doi

  13. [21]

    Aerts Argu\"elles, J. (2018). The heart of an image: Quantum superposition and entanglement in visual perception. Foundations of Science 23 , pp. 757-778. doi: 10.1007/s10699-018-9547-1

    2018 doi

  14. [22]

    and Sozzo, S

    Aerts Argu\"elles, J. and Sozzo, S. (2020). How images combine meaning. Quantum entanglement in visual perception. Soft Computing 24 , pp. 10277-10286. doi: 10.1007/s00500-020-04692-3

    2020 doi

  15. [23]

    Aerts Argu\"elles, J. (2025). Are colors quanta of light for human vision? A quantum cognition study of visual perception. arXiv:2403.18850 (q-bio)

    2025 arXiv

  16. [24]

    and Kay, P

    Berlin, B. and Kay, P. (1969). Basic Color Terms: Their Universality and Evolution . Berkeley: University of California Press

    1969

  17. [25]

    and beim Graben, P

    Blutner, R. and beim Graben, P. (2016). Quantum cognition and bounded rationality. Synthese 193 , pp. 3239-3291. doi: 10.1007/s11229-015-0928-5

    2016 doi

  18. [26]

    Bruner, J. S. and Postman, L. (1949). On the perception of incongruity: A paradigm. Journal of Personality 18 , pp. 206-223. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.1949.tb01241.x

    1949

  19. [27]

    and Gabora, L

    Bruza, P. and Gabora, L. (Eds.) (2009). Special Issue: Quantum Cognition. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 53 , pp. 303-452. doi: 10.1016/j.jmp.2009.06.002

    2009 doi

  20. [28]

    and Bruza, P

    Busemeyer, J. and Bruza, P. (2012). Quantum Models of Cognition and Decision . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    2012

  21. [29]

    and Pleskac, T

    Busemeyer, J., Kvam, P. and Pleskac, T. (2019). Markov versus quantum dynamic models of belief change during evidence monitoring. Scientific Reports 9 , 18025. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-54383-9

    2019 doi

  22. [30]

    R., Wang, Z

    Busemeyer, J. R., Wang, Z. and Townsend, J. T. (2006). Quantum dynamics of human decision making. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 50 , pp. 220-241. doi: 10.1016/j.jmp.2006.01.003

    2006 doi

  23. [31]

    A., Berlin, B

    Collier, G. A., Berlin, B. and Kay, P. (1973). Basic color terms: Their universality and evolution. Language 49 , pp. 245-248. doi: 10.2307/412128. ISSN 0097-8507

    1973 doi

  24. [32]

    L., Giuntini, R., Leporini, R., Negri, E

    Dalla Chiara, M. L., Giuntini, R., Leporini, R., Negri, E. and Sergioli, G. (2015). Quantum information, cognition, and music. Frontiers in Psychology 6 , 1583. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01583

    2015

  25. [33]

    Davidoff, J. (2001). Language and perceptual categorisation. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 5 pp. 382-387. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01726-5

    2001 doi

  26. [34]

    Davies, I. R. L., Sowden, P. T., Jerrett, D. T., Jerrett, T. and Corbett, G. G. (1998). A cross-cultural study of English and Setswana speakers on a colour triads task: A test of the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis. British Journal of Psychology. 89 , pp. 1-15. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295...

    1998

  27. [35]

    Dirac, P. A. M. (1939). A new notation for quantum mechanics. Mathematical Proceedings of the Cambridge Philosophical Society 35 pp. 416-418. doi: 10.1017/S0305004100021162

    1939 doi

  28. [36]

    and Haun, D

    Disa, S., LeGuen, O. and Haun, D. (2011). Categorical perception of emotional facial expressions does not require lexical categories. Emotion 11 , pp. 1479-1483. doi: 10.1037/a0025336

    2011 doi

  29. [37]

    D., Siqueland, E

    Eimas, P. D., Siqueland, E. R., Jusczyk, P. W. and Vigorito, J. (1971). Speech perception in infants. Science 171 , pp. 303-306. doi: 10.1126/science.171.3968.303

    1971 doi

  30. [38]

    Sulle metriche definite da una forma Hermitiana

    Fubini, G., (1904). Sulle metriche definite da una forma Hermitiana. Atti del Reale Istituto Veneto di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti 63 pp. 501–513

    1904

  31. [39]

    Geeraerts, D., Dirven, R., Taylor, J. R. and Langacker, R. W. (Eds.), (2001). Applied Cognitive Linguistics, II, Language Pedagogy . doi: 10.1515/9783110866254

    2001 doi

  32. [40]

    and Hendrickson, A.T

    Goldstone, R.L. and Hendrickson, A.T. (2010). Categorical perception. Wires Cognitive Science 1 , pp. 69–78. doi: 10.1002/wcs.26

    2010 doi

  33. [41]

    Probability models

    Gudder, S., Zanghí, N. Probability models. Nuovo Cimento B 79 , pp. 291-301. doi: 10.1007/BF02748978

    doi

  34. [42]

    Harnad, S. (Ed.). (1987). Categorical Perception: The Groundwork of Cognition . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press

    1987

  35. [43]

    and Khrennikov, A

    Haven, E. and Khrennikov, A. (2013). Quantum Social Science . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

    2013

  36. [44]

    S., Yearsley, J

    Huang, J., Epping, G., Trueblood, J. S., Yearsley, J. M., Busemeyer, J. M. and Pothos, E. M. (2025). An overview of the quantum cognition research programme. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review. In press

    2025

  37. [45]

    Johansen, M. K. and Kruschke, J. K. (2005). Category representation for classification and feature inference. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 31 , pp. 1433-1458. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.31.6.1433

    2005 doi

  38. [46]

    and Waxman, S

    Havy, M. and Waxman, S. R. (2016). Naming influences 9-month-olds’ identification of discrete categories along a perceptual continuum. Cognition 156 , pp. 41-51. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2016.07.011

    2016 doi

  39. [47]

    and Kleck, R (2009)

    Hess, U., Adams, R. and Kleck, R (2009). The categorical perception of emotions and traits. Social Cognition 27 , pp. 320-326. doi: 10.1521/soco.2009.27.2.320

    2009 doi

  40. [48]

    Khrennikov, A. (2014). Ubiquitous Quantum Structure . Berlin: Springer

    2014

  41. [49]

    Lane, H. (1965). The motor theory of speech perception: A critical review. Psychological Review 72 , pp. 275-309. doi: 10.1037/h0021986

    1965 doi

  42. [50]

    Lawrence, D. H. (1949). Acquired distinctiveness of cues: I. Transfer between discriminations on the basis of familiarity with the stimulus. Journal of Experimental Psychology 39 , pp. 770-784. doi: 10.1037/h0058097

    1949 doi

  43. [51]

    M., Cooper, F

    Liberman, A. M., Cooper, F. S., Shankweiler, D. P., Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1967). Perception of the speech code. Psychological Review 74 pp. 431-461. doi:10.1037/h0020279

    1967 doi

  44. [52]

    M., Harris, K

    Liberman, A. M., Harris, K. S., Hoffman, H. S. and Griffith, B. C. (1957). The discrimination of speech sounds within and across phoneme boundaries. Journal of Experimental Psychology 54 , pp. 358-368. doi:10.1037/h0044417

    1957 doi

  45. [53]

    L., Altom, M

    Medin, D. L., Altom, M. W. and Murphy, T. D. (1984). Given versus induced category representations: Use of prototype and exemplar information in classification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition 10 , pp. 333-352. doi: 10.1037/0278-7393.10.3.333

    1984 doi

  46. [54]

    C., Catlin, J

    Mervis, B. C., Catlin, J. and Rosch, E. (1975). Development of the structure of color categories. Developmental Psychology 2 , pp. 54-60. doi: 10.1037/h0076118

    1975 doi

  47. [55]

    and Wichert, A

    Moreira, C. and Wichert, A. (2016). Quantum probabilistic models revisited: the case of disjunction effects in cognition. Frontiers in Physics 4 . 26. doi: 10.3389/fphy.2016.00026

    2016

  48. [56]

    Osherson, D. N. and Smith, E. E. (1981). On the adequacy of prototype theory as a theory of concepts. Cognition 9 pp. 35-58. doi:10.1016/0010-0277(81)90013-5

    1981 doi

  49. [57]

    M., Barque-Duran, A., Yearsley, J

    Pothos, E. M., Barque-Duran, A., Yearsley, J. M., Trueblood, J. S., Busemeyer, J. R. and Hampton, J. A. (2015). Progress and current challenges with the quantum similarity model. Frontiers in Psychology 6 , 205. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00205

    2015

  50. [58]

    and Kay, P

    Regier, T. and Kay, P. (2009). Language, thought, and color: Whorf was half right. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 13 , pp. 439-447. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2009.07.001

    2009 doi

  51. [59]

    Rosch, E. H. (1973). Natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 4 , pp. 328-350. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(73)90017-0

    1973 doi

  52. [60]

    Rosch Heider, E. (1971). ``Focal'' Color areas and the development of color names. Developmental Psychology 4 , pp. 447-455. doi: 10.1037/h0030955

    1971 doi

  53. [61]

    Rosch Heider, E. (1972). Universals in color naming and memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology 93 , pp. 10-20. doi: 10.1037/h0032606

    1972 doi

  54. [62]

    Cognitive representations of semantic categories

    Rosch, Eleanor (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104 , pp. 192-233. doi: 10.1037//0096-3445.104.3.192. doi: 10.1037/h0032606

    1975 doi

  55. [63]

    B, Gray, W

    Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B, Gray, W. D, Johnson, D. M and Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology. 8 , pp. 382-439. doi: 10.1016/0010-0285(76)90013-X

    1976 doi

  56. [64]

    J., Reichmuth, C

    Schusterman, R. J., Reichmuth, C. J. and Kastak, D. (2000). How animals classify friends and foes. Current Directions in Psychological Science 9 , pp. 1-6. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.00047

    2000

  57. [65]

    Sidman M. (1994). Equivalence Relations and Behavior: A Research Story . Boston, MA: Authors Cooperative

    1994

  58. [66]

    Smith, E. E. and Medin, D. L. (1981). Categories and Concepts . Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press

    1981

  59. [67]

    Study, E. (1905). K\"urzeste Wege im komplexen Gebiet. Mathematische Annalen 60 , pp. 321-378

    1905

  60. [68]

    A., Pilkevich, S

    Surov, I. A., Pilkevich, S. V., Alodjants, A. P. and Khmelevsky, S. V. (2019). Quantum phase stability in human cognition. Frontiers in Psychology 10 , 929. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00929

    2019

  61. [69]

    Yearsley, JM. (2017). Advanced tools and concepts for quantum cognition: a tutorial. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 78 , pp. 24-39. doi: 10.1016/j.jmp.2016.07.005

    2017 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.