A two-factor theory of stimulus-repetition effects.

Kraut, Alan G.; Smothergill, Daniel W.

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.4.1.191

Cited by 30 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As the finding was inconsistent with all the major theoretical accounts of negative priming, the authors attempted to reconcile the finding by suggesting that there are two processes responsible for negative priming effects. One process is related to transfer from prior experiences and the other is an attention-orienting process (see Kraut & Smothergill, 1978). As such, these findings are extremely similar to the current study and the tectonic theory of selective attention (Melara & Algom, 2003).…”

Section: Figure 1 Mean Response Times In Ms As a Function Of Repetitisupporting

confidence: 91%

Self-Report of ADHD Symptoms in College Students and Repetition Effects

Marczinski

2005

J Atten Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The research in this article focuses on the relation between self-report of attention deficit disorder (ADD) symptoms and performance on a two-alternative forced-choice task that measures repetition effects. The ADD/Hyperactive Adolescent Self-Report Scale--Short Form is administered to college students after they completed the repetition effects task. Performance to familiar and novel stimuli can be measured using this paradigm. The results indicate that participants in the good and poor attention groups do not differ in their responses to repeated stimuli. However, participants who self-report poor attention are faster to respond to novel stimuli compared with participants who self-report good attention. This brief questionnaire appears to capture individual differences in attention and may be useful in attention research.

show abstract

Section: Figure 1 Mean Response Times In Ms As a Function Of Repetitisupporting

confidence: 91%

Self-Report of ADHD Symptoms in College Students and Repetition Effects

Marczinski

2005

J Atten Disord

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The point to note is that neither of these studies produced a time course for cuing effects that matched that observed in many spatial cuing studies. To the extent that the time course of cuing effects is used as a signature property of underlying attentional processes, these findings (Taylor & Klein, 1998a;Fox & DeFockert, 2001) suggest that validity effects in exogenous spatial orienting studies may have a different cause than validity effects in exogenous nonspatial cuing studies (see also Kraut & Smothergill, 1978).…”

Section: Inhibition Of Return and Dimensions Other Than Spacementioning

confidence: 99%

Inhibition of return for the length of a line?

Francis

Milliken

2003

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The orienting of attention is pervasive in human behavior and the subject of a great deal of contemporary research in experimental psychology. The spatial cuing method is among the most commonly used to study orienting processes (Posner, 1980). In this method, an attentional cue and then a target are presented to participants in succession. The cue is presumed to elicit a shift of attention to one particular location in space, either because it provides predictive information about the most likely location for a subsequent target or because it captures attention automatically (Jonides, 1981). Cuing effects are defined by differences in performance for targets that appear at the cued location and targets that appear at an uncued location.Although much has been learned from use of the spatial cuing method, an issue that remains understudied is whether empirical effects revealed in spatial cuing studies reflect orienting processes that are specific to the dimension of space. In this article, we address this issue with reference to an effect known as inhibition of return (Posner & Cohen, 1984). Four experiments are described in which cues and targets were either line segments or colored rectangles presented centrally. One critical result was that responses were often slower for validly cued than for invalidly cued targets. Given that the tasks did not involve spatial orienting processes in any obvious way, this result suggests that the processes responsible for inhibition of return may not be specific to the domain of space. A second critical result is that the time course of these cuing effects depended both on the stimulus attribute that defined cue validity and on the nature of the task. To accommodate these results, a theoretical framework with components that are sensitive to task and stimulus variables is offered. To set the experiments in context, a brief review of the inhibition of return literature is provided below (see also Taylor & Klein, 1998b). Inhibition of Return and Spatial CuingPosner and Cohen (1984) reported a series of experiments in which a central box was flanked to the left and right by two peripheral boxes. The first critical event on a trial was an attentional cue, which consisted of the brightening of one of the two peripheral boxes. At varying stimulus onset asynchronies (SOAs) following the cue, a target appeared inside one of the three boxes. Participants were to press a response key as quickly as possible after detecting the onset of the target. When the target followed the cue by less than approximately 300 msec, responses were faster for targets at the cued location than for targets at the uncued location. However, at longer cue-target SOAs, responses were slower for targets at the cued location than for targets at the uncued location, the effect now commonly called inhibition of return.Posner and Cohen suggested that attention is initially attracted to the periphery by the cue, which explains the facilitation effect observed on short SOA trials. However, if the target does not appea...

show abstract

“…Yet, studies of perceptual memory show that repetition enhances the perceptibility of objects (see, e.g., Jacoby & Dallas, 1981). A possible reconciliation of the phenomena of perceptual habituation and enhanced perceptual memory was developed and tested by Kraut and Smothergill (1978). They suggested that stimulus repetition has two opposing effects: an alertness decrement, which is relatively short-lasting, and a conceptual-encoding increment, which is relatively long-lasting.…”

Section: Perceptual Inhibition Of Expected Inputsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptual inhibition of expected inputs: The key that opens closed minds

Johnston

Hawley

1994

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mind appears to be biased simultaneously toward both expected and unexpected inputs. For example, familiar scenes are usually perceived more readily than novel scenes, indicating the former bias, but a single novel object sometimes pops out from a familiar field, indicating the latter bias. A diverse literature and a computational model converge on the following resolution to this paradox: The former bias is conceptually driven and actually suppresses data-driven processing of expected inputs; in turn, this suppression disinhibits data-driven processing of unexpected inputs, yielding the latter bias. Evidence for suppressed data-driven processing of expected inputs is drawn from studies of perceptual habituation, semantic satiation, memory inhibition, inhibition of return, repetition blindness, primed inhibition, the word-inferiority effect, registration without learning, and both expert-and schema-based inhibitory effects. Evidence for enhanced data-driven processing of unexpected inputs is drawn from studies of the orienting response, mismatch negativity, memory facilitation, both expert-and schema-based facilitatory effects, and perceptual popout. The model, called mismatch theory, incorporates inhibitory and facilitatory perceptual dynamics and is found to simulate the opposing biases. Implications of mismatch theory for perceptual phenomenology, dynamic systems theory, mental health, and individual differences are also discussed.In a review of some of her research on perception and memory, Treisman (1992) concluded that by creating accumulated traces of past perceptual objects or events, the world molds our minds to recreate earlier experiences. At the same time, we retain an impressive capacity also to represent any new object that fails to find its match in our prior assembly of stored tokens. (p. 874) This observation echoes what Grossberg (1987) calls the stability-plasticity dilemma. How can the mind be molded to familiar environments and still remain vigilant for change? We suggest that the'opposing biases toward both what is most expected and what is least expected are among the most adaptive and revealing features of the mind. Part 1 of this paper presents a paradigmatic example of opposing mental biases in the form of our own prior work on novel popout. Part 2 outlines in general terms a possible explanation of novel popout and resolution of the stability-plasticity dilemma, called mismatch theory. Part 3 draws together diverse lines of empirical support for the key assumptions of mismatch theory. Part 4 de-

show abstract

A two-factor theory of stimulus-repetition effects.

Cited by 30 publications

References 16 publications

Self-Report of ADHD Symptoms in College Students and Repetition Effects

Self-Report of ADHD Symptoms in College Students and Repetition Effects

Inhibition of return for the length of a line?

Perceptual inhibition of expected inputs: The key that opens closed minds

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About