The two-process theory of detection, search, and attention presented by Schneider and Shiffrin is tested and extended in a series of experiments. The studies demonstrate the qualitative difference between two modes of information processing: automatic detection and controlled search. They trace the course of the learning of automatic detection, of categories, and of automaticattention responses. They show the dependence of automatic detection on attending responses and demonstrate how such responses interrupt controlled processing and interfere with the focusing of attention. The learning of categories is shown to improve controlled search performance. A general framework for human information processing is proposed; the framework emphasizes the roles of automatic and controlled processing. The theory is compared to and contrasted with extant models of search and attention.

A two-process theory of human information processing is proposed and applied to detection, search, and attention phenomena. Automatic processing is activation of a learned sequence of elements in long-term memory that is initiated by appropriate inputs and then proceeds automatically-without subject control, without stressing the capacity limitations of the system, and without necessarily demanding attention. Controlled processing is a temporary activation of a sequence of elements that can be set up quickly and easily but requires attention, is capacity-limited (usually serial in nature), and is controlled by the subject. A series of studies using both reaction time and accuracy measures is presented, which traces these concepts in the form of automatic detection and controlled, search through the areas of detection, search, and attention. Results in these areas are shown to arise from common mechanisms. Automatic detection is shown to develop following consistent mapping of stimuli to responses over trials. Controlled search is utilized in varied-mapping paradigms, and in our studies, it takes the form of serial, terminating search. The approach resolves a number of apparent conflicts in the literature. I. General Introduction Atkinson and Shiffrin (1968) advocated a fundamental division of human memory and information processing into (a) labile control processes and (b) learned or inherent structural components.

No abstract

Recognizing printed words requires the mapping of graphic forms, which vary with writing systems, to linguistic forms, which vary with languages. Using a newly developed meta-analytic approach, aggregated Gaussian-estimated sources (AGES; Chein et al. [2002]: Psychol Behav 77:635-639), we examined the neuroimaging results for word reading within and across writing systems and languages. To find commonalities, we compiled 25 studies in English and other Western European languages that use an alphabetic writing system, 9 studies of native Chinese reading, 5 studies of Japanese Kana (syllabic) reading, and 4 studies of Kanji (morpho-syllabic) reading. Using the AGES approach, we created meta-images within each writing system, isolated reliable foci of activation, and compared findings across writing systems and languages. The results suggest that these writing systems utilize a common network of regions in word processing. Writing systems engage largely the same systems in terms of gross cortical regions, but localization within those regions suggests differences across writing systems. In particular, the region known as the visual word form area (VWFA) shows strikingly consistent localization across tasks and across writing systems. This region in the left mid-fusiform gyrus is critical to word recognition across writing systems and languages.

No abstract

Micro Experimental Laboratory (MEL)is a third-generation integrated software system for experimental research. The researcher fills in forms, and MEL writes the experimental program, runs the experiments, and analyzes the data. MEL includes a form-based user interface, automatic programming, computer tutorials, a compiler, a real-time data acquisition system, database management, statistical analysis, and subject scheduling. It can perform most reaction time, questionnaire, and text comprehension experiments with little or no programming. It includes a Pascal-like programming language and can call routines written in standard languages. MEL operates on IBM PC compatible computers and supports most display controllers. MEL maintains millisecond timing with high-speed text and graphics presentation. MEL provides a systematic approach to dealing with nine concerns in running an experimental laboratory.Developers of any software system for experimentation must trade off considerations of flexibility, learnability, ease of use, precision, experiment generation time, and experimental qualitycontrolto maximize systemperformance. Incorporation of advances in hardware and software technology allow for quantum jumpsin termsof system performance given the above considerations. The Micro Experimental Laboratory (MEL) optimizes these trade-offs within the constraints of personal computers with640Kof memory, human factors considerations about interfacetechnology, fourth-generation software technology, and the use of automatic programming techniques.MEL is a third-generation psychology software system that builds on the lessons learned from earlier programming systems. The first generation of programming languages in psychology were typically specialized process control languages working in small memory partitions (e.g., Schneider & Scholz, 1973;Scholz, 1972) operating with less than 16Kof memory on machines such as the DEC PDP-8 or the IBM 1800. The second generation had two major variants. The first was the subroutine approach, whichinvolved a seriesof subroutines that are called from FORTRAN or Pascal programs (e.g., Osgood, 1985Osgood, , 1988) running on DEC PDP-lIs or Apple lls with 64K of usable memory per process.1 The second variant was the stimulus presentation approach (Eamon, 1982;Poltrock& Foltz, 1982, in whichfixed displays were presented in prespecified orders on Apple II computers. The orders could be either specified within one of three prescribed paradigms, as in CEDATS (Eamon, 1982), or explicitly enumerated, as in APT (poltrock & Foltz, 1982(poltrock & Foltz, , 1988. The subroutine package approach was flexible but required that graduate students be trained as programmers and involved longdevelopment timesto generate experiments. The stimulus presentation approach allowed fastexperiment specification at the costof reduced flexibility and a great deal of typing to enumerate all the stimuli and the stimulus orderings.MEL is a third-generation psychology software system that operates on IBM PCs with 640K of mem...

No abstract

No abstract