Do the global advantage and interference effects covary?

Abstract

The global precedence hypothesis has been operationally defmed as a faster or earlier processing of the global than of the local properties of an image (global advantage) and as interference by processing at the global level with processing at the local level (global interference). Navon (1977) proposed an association between the global advantage and interference effects. Other studies have shown a dissociation between the two effects (e.g., Lamb & Robertson, 1988).It seems that the controversy in previous research resulted from not equalizing the eccentricities of global and local properties. In the present study, the eccentricities of the two levels were equalized by using stimuli with all their elements located along their perimeters. The results of the first experiment demonstrated that although the global level was identified faster than the local level in both the central and the peripheral locations of the visual field (global advantage), the pattern of global interference varied across the visual field. Consistency of global and local levels increased the speed of processing of the local level displayed at the center of the visual field but slowed down the processing of that level at peripheral locations. The results of Experiment 2 demonstrated that it was most likely that the variation in the pattern of global interference was determined by the variable of eccentricity, rather than by the sizes of the global and local levels.The so-called global precedence hypothesis has been studied with at least two major performance measures: the relative speed of identification and asymmetric interference. The asymmetric interference reported in the global precedence studies usually refers to a Stroop-type effect in which processing of local properties is affected by processing at the global level much more than the latter is affected by the former. There has been a controversy in the literature, however, over the association between the global/local advantage and interference effects and over its universality.For example, Kinchla and Wolfe (1979) suggested that the temporal order of processing is not always from global to local. Rather, it varies according to the size of the compound pattern. To be able to study the effect of the size of the stimulus on processing at global and local levels, they chose to have five different sizes of stimuli, from 4.8°to 22.1°. They mixed stimuli of these different sizes together in one block and randomly presented them to the subject. This meant that the subject was uncertain about the size and eccentricity of the incoming stimuCorrespondence concerning this article should be addressed to G. Amirkhiabani, Faculty of Arts, Health and Science, Central Queensland University, Rockhampton, QLD, 4702, Australia (e-mail: a.keen@ cqu.edu.au). -Accepted by previous editor, Myron L. BraunsteinIus.' The results of Kinchla and Wolfe's study indicated that the global level was detected faster when its size was less than 6°_9°and slower when its size was over that limit.Navon and Norman (1983)...

Effect of the similarity between target and global and local levels in hierarchical stimuli processing

“…Since there was a local advantage, a greater local interference should have been found. However, this lack of covariation between RT advantage and interference has frequently been reported (e.g., Amirkhiabani & Lovegrove, 1999;LaGasse, 1993;Lamb & Yund, 1993;Luna & Merino, 1998;Navon & Norman, 1983;Paquet, 1992;Paquet & Merikle, 1984). The bidirectional interference may indicate that the attentional resources are distributed between the global and local levels, whereas the RT advantage may indicate which level captures more attention, depending on its relative salience.…”

“…The salience of local and global features may depend on the characteristics of the stimuli, procedure or demands of the task. So, it is possible, as Amirkhiabani and Lovegrove (1999) suggested, that the RT advantage is a better candidate than interference as a measure of global/local precedence.…”

Peripheral global neglect in high vs. low autistic tendency

“…Studies on global precedence of Navon figures (Amirkhiabani and Lovegrove, 1999) explored this size/periphery element, finding that speed of processing at the local level increased when stimuli were displayed foveally, but slowed at peripheral visual field locations—possibly indicating a decrease in local stimulus saliency in the periphery. This presumably is relevant to the periphery task, as a precedence in time should translate into the percept seen first.…”

Proactive interference and concurrent inhibitory processes do not differentially affect item and associative recognition: Implication for the age-related associative memory deficit

“…In the standard paradigm, the relationship between stimuli at the two spatial scales is manipulated in terms of congruency. The basic finding from studies on normal young is "global interference", where local responses are slowed due to interference from an inconsistent global character (Amirkhiabani & Lovegrove, 1999;Navon & Norman, 1983;Robertson & Lamb, 1991).…”