Different-case repetition still leads to perceptual blindness

Marohn, Kathleen M.; Hochhaus, Larry

doi:10.3758/bf03334851

Cited by 23 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Error bars depict standard error of the mean corrected for within-subjects designs (Cousineau, 2005) 1989; Luo & Caramazza, 1996). RB has been documented with a range of stimuli, including letters, words, and pictures (Bavelier, 1994;Egeth & Santee, 1981;Kanwisher, 1991;Luo & Caramazza, 1996;Marohn & Hochhaus, 1988). RB is not limited to physically identical stimuli but also occurs for stimuli that belong to the same category but are visually dissimilar (e.g., A and a, or the word Bcat^and a picture of a cat) (Bavelier, 1994;Egeth & Santee, 1981;Marohn & Hochhaus, 1988).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…RB has been documented with a range of stimuli, including letters, words, and pictures (Bavelier, 1994;Egeth & Santee, 1981;Kanwisher, 1991;Luo & Caramazza, 1996;Marohn & Hochhaus, 1988). RB is not limited to physically identical stimuli but also occurs for stimuli that belong to the same category but are visually dissimilar (e.g., A and a, or the word Bcat^and a picture of a cat) (Bavelier, 1994;Egeth & Santee, 1981;Marohn & Hochhaus, 1988). It is a strikingly robust phenomenon, occurring even when the omission of the repeated item violates overarching structures like the semantic sense of a sentence (Kanwisher & Potter, 1989, 1990.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Categorical information influences conscious perception: An interaction between object-substitution masking and repetition blindness

Goodhew

Greenwood

Edwards

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The visual system is constantly bombarded with dynamic input. In this context, the creation of enduring object representations presents a particular challenge. We used object-substitution masking (OSM) as a tool to probe these processes. In particular, we examined the effect of target-like stimulus repetitions on OSM. In visual crowding, the presentation of a physically identical stimulus to the target reduces crowding and improves target perception, whereas in spatial repetition blindness, the presentation of a stimulus that belongs to the same category (type) as the target impairs perception. Across two experiments, we found an interaction between spatial repetition blindness and OSM, such that repeating a same-type stimulus as the target increased masking magnitude relative to presentation of a different-type stimulus. These results are discussed in the context of the formation of object files. Moreover, the fact that the inducer only had to belong to the same Btype^as the target in order to exacerbate masking, without necessarily being physically identical to the target, has important implications for our understanding of OSM per se. That is, our results show the target is processed to a categorical level in OSM despite effective masking and, strikingly, demonstrate that this category-level content directly influences whether or not the target is perceived, not just performance on another task (as in priming).

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Categorical information influences conscious perception: An interaction between object-substitution masking and repetition blindness

Goodhew

Greenwood

Edwards

2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthennore, a recent studyby Marohn and Hochhaus (1988) shows that the subjects fail to perceive brief second presentations of words when they are masked andimmediately follow a 500-msec presentation of the same word appearing two lines above the location of the target. This phenomenon, which Marohn and Hochhaus call "perceptual blindness, " occurs when the two occurrences are in opposite letter case, and seems to be a variant of repetition blindness.…”

Section: Implications For the Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Indeed, several recently reported phenomena appear to provide additional cases of repetition blindness not only for words (Humphreys, Besner, & Quinlan, 1988;Marohn & Hochhaus, 1988), but also for letters (Mozer, in press). A variety of other visual phenomena could be interpreted in terms of the dissociation between type and token processing.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Repetition blindness: The effects of stimulus modality and spatial displacement

1989

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repetition blindness (Kanwisher, 1986(Kanwisher, , 1987 is the failure to detect repetitions of words in lists presented in rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP). Two questions were investigated in the present study. First, if repetition blindness is not found with auditory presentation, it would support a specifically visual account of the effect. Second, if displacement of the two instances in visual space eliminates repetition blindness, it would suggest that repetition blindness is restricted to instances in which identical stimuli are distinguished solely by temporal differences. In Experiment 1, the subjects omitted second occurrences of repeated words in verbatim recall of rapid sentences presented visually (in RSVP), but not auditorily (using compressed speech), indicating that repetition blindness is a modality-specific phenomenon. In Experiments 2 and 3, repetition blindness was observed even when two occurrences of a written word were presented in different locations, showing that distinct locations do not guarantee token individuation. The results are discussed within a model that distinguishes between processes of type recognition and token individuation.In a recently discovered phenomenon called repetition blindness (Kanwisher, 1986(Kanwisher, , 1987, viewers fail to report repetitions in lists of words presented in rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP). The failure occurs both in detection tasks in which subjects are asked to report the repeated word, and in immediate recall tasks in which subjects are asked to report all the words, including repetitions. The phenomenon is highly robust for rapid presentation rates (six words/second or faster), and occurs even when the repeated words are separated by one to three intervening words. Furthermore, when repeated words are embedded in sentences that are presented for verbatim recall, the subjects omit the second occurrence even at the sacrifice of sentence meaning and grammaticality. Finally, repetition blindness does not depend on physical identity; the second of the two words is hard to detect even if one occurrence appears in uppercase and the other in lowercase.Repetition blindness has been interpreted in terms of a distinction between type recognition and token individuation. In recognition, a word is identified as a type (e.g., the word chair). In individuation, an item is characterWe thank Audra Noel for research assistance, Arthur Wingfield for the use of a speech compressor, Linda Lombardi for showing us how to use it, and Sue Lima, John Rubin, David Irwin, Richard Held, Anne Treisman, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by NSF Grants BNS83-l8l56 and BNS86-l9053 to Mary C. Potter, and by the MIT Center for Cognitive Science. Requests for reprints may be sent to Nancy Kanwisher, who is now at the Department of Psychology, Tolman Hall, University of California, Berkeley, CA 94720.ized as a particular token of a given type (e.g., as the second instance of the word chair). Kanwisher (1986...

show abstract

“…detection of single words presented near threshold (Hochhaus & Johnston, 1996;Humphreys, Besner, & Quinlan, 1988;Marohn & Hochhaus, 1988), misspelling detection (MacKay, 1969), and judgments of the number of letters that appear in a simultaneous spatial array (Mozer, 1989). Kanwisher (1987Kanwisher ( , 1991 argued that repetition blindness is primarily of interest because it reveals an important functional dissociation between two different visual processes.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Signal detection analyses of repetition blindness.

Kanwisher¹,

Kim²,

Wickens³

1996

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments used a signal detection model to demonstrate that repetition blindness (N. Kanwisher, 1987) reflects a reduction in sensitivity (d') for the detection of repeated compared with unrepeated visual targets. In Experiment 1, repetition blindness (RB) was found for rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) letter sequences, whether the visual targets were specified by category membership (vowels) or as 1 of 2 prespecified letters (e.g., A or O). In Experiment 2, RB was found to a similar degree even when the 1st critical item was displayed for twice as long as the other list items, although overall performance was considerably improved. Experiment 3 found RB for displays containing just 2 simultaneously presented letters. These results support Kanwisher's (1987) account of RB as a genuine perceptual effect, and rule out alternative accounts of RB as the result of response bias, output interference, or guessing biases.In repetition blindness (RB), people are considerably less accurate at reporting two visually presented items if they are identical or similar than if they are different (Bjork &

show abstract

Different-case repetition still leads to perceptual blindness

Cited by 23 publications

References 10 publications

Categorical information influences conscious perception: An interaction between object-substitution masking and repetition blindness

Categorical information influences conscious perception: An interaction between object-substitution masking and repetition blindness

Repetition blindness: The effects of stimulus modality and spatial displacement

Signal detection analyses of repetition blindness.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About