Form recognition at brief durations as a function of adapting field and interval between stimulations.

Eriksen, Charles W.; Hoffman, Melvin

doi:10.1037/h0042228

Cited by 56 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The bi-directionality for the summation confirms the previous finding of Eriksen and Hoffman (1963) and would seem to render Sperling's (1963) erasure concept completely inappropriate.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 76%

Luminance summation-contrast reduction as a basis for certain forward and backward masking effects

Eriksen

Lappin

1964

Psychon Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The forced-choice recognition of forms presented at brief durations in a tachistoscope was impaired when a second field luminance occurred concurrently with the form presentation or at brief intervals before or after. The results support the temporal luminance summation hypothesis and its bi-directionality in time. ProblemEriksen & Hoffman (1963) have advanced a temporal luminance summation-contrast reduction hypothesis to account for certain cases of backward and foreward masking in vision. Due to the characteristic of the visual system to sum luminances over time intervals of nearly 100 ms., presentation of an illuminated field at short intervals prior to or following a field containing a form or a display, will have the effect of adding equal luminance to both the figure and ground of the display. This results in reduced figure-ground contrast 'with resulting impaired recognition of the display. Considerable evidence has supported the luminance summation hypothesis (Eriksen & Steffy, 1964; Steffy & Eriksen, 1965;Thompson, 1964) .Sperling (1963) has also reported that the presentation of a homogeneously illuminated (informationless) field at brief delays following a display impairs perception. He interprets the phenomenon in terms of an erasure process that wipes out the brief perceptual memory or storage of the display. He further uses this "erasure" concept in developing a more elaborate model of the perceptual system. Eriksen & Steffy (1964) have pointed out the inappropriateness on logical as well as experimental grounds of the erasure concept, but if it should be found that a homogeneously illuminated field that pre c e des a figure or display by a brief interval has the same impairment on perception as when it follows, the invalidity of an erasure concept would be selfevident. One cannot erase that. which is not yet present.The purpose of this experiment was: (a) to verify Thompson's (1964) findings with different techniques and methodology; and (b) to determine whether the luminance summation effect was symetrical, e.g., that the perceptual masking effect of an illuminated field was essentially the same when it preceded the stimulus at brief intervals as when it followed it. MetbodBy the use of a three field tachistoscope containing an adapting field (FA) and two stimulus fields (F I and F II), it is possible to demonstrate the luminance summation-contrast reduction effect in a straightforward manner. With the FA dark but containing a faintly lumi-

show abstract

“…The bi-directionality for the summation confirms the previous finding of Eriksen and Hoffman (1963) and would seem to render Sperling's (1963) erasure concept completely inappropriate.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 76%

Luminance summation-contrast reduction as a basis for certain forward and backward masking effects

Eriksen

Lappin

1964

Psychon Sci

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If the stimulus is a near-threshold duration exposure of letters and the adaptation field is dark, the masking effect of the following flash is maximal at 0 msec delay, the effect sharply decreasing immediately as the delay is increased and minimal at delays longer than 100 msec. IlIuminating the adaptation field (Eriksen & Hoffman, 1963) or decreasing the intensity of the masking flash (Thompson, 1966) yields flatter masking curves, both results consistent with a theory of summation of stimulus and mask luminances, creating contrast reduction of stimulus figure and ground (Eriksen, 1966). An illuminated adaptation field would itself mask the stimulus, lessening any further masking effects of a following flash, and decreasing the masking flash luminance would create less contrast reduction of stimulus figure and ground.…”

supporting

confidence: 67%

A steep backward masking curve

Gribben

1968

Psychon Sci

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subjects identified briefly presented pairs of letters which were fonowed by a bright flash of light after a varying delay.Letter accuracy sharply increased as the flash delay exceeded 30 msec and by 70 msec delay had little further masking effect. Two stimulus durations showed different total accuracy scores, but the masking curves for the two durations were similar.Perception of a visual stimulus can be impaired or destroyed by a flash of light following the stimulus within a period usually found to be about 100 msec (Raab, 1963). If the stimulus is a near-threshold duration exposure of letters and the adaptation field is dark, the masking effect of the following flash is maximal at 0 msec delay, the effect sharply decreasing immediately as the delay is increased and minimal at delays longer than 100 msec. IlIuminating the adaptation field (Eriksen & Hoffman, 1963) or decreasing the intensity of the masking flash (Thompson, 1966) yields flatter masking curves, both results consistent with a theory of summation of stimulus and mask luminances, creating contrast reduction of stimulus figure and ground (Eriksen, 1966). An illuminated adaptation field would itself mask the stimulus, lessening any further masking effects of a following flash, and decreasing the masking flash luminance would create less contrast reduction of stimulus figure and ground. In Thompson's study (1966), recognition of the single letter stimulus (A. T, or U, black on .200 ft-L ground) is at a chance level when a .200 ft-L flash follows immediately, and improves when either the delay ~f the .200 ft-L flash is increased, or when a less intense flash follows immediately.The present study explores the backward masking effect when more than one of three letters is given, when the adaptation field is dark, and when a following flasb more intense than the stimulus is used. As well, stimulus information is varied by exposing the stimulus for different durations. A more briefly presented stimulus lIhould perhaps be easier to mask, the flash reducing figure-ground contra~t more than for a stimulus presented longer. Presumably, with intensity-time reclprocity at short iiurations, a luminance summation hypothesis, by analogy, is applicable here. Apparatus and StimuliEach stimulus display contained two letters, black on off-white cardboard, reflecting 1.7 mL luminance and seen 1.22 m distant in a three-field tachistoscope at a duration determined separately for each S. The masking field showed a plain sheet of the

show abstract

“…Several studies have given an S either one or two presentations of a stimulus and then asked him to describe, identify, recognize or detect it (e.g., Eriksen & Hoffman, 1963;Pylyshyn, 1965;Smith & Carey, 1966). While each of these finds the multi-presentation superior, supporting the repetition effects reported earlier, only the design of Smith and Carey (1966) permits a reciprocity analysis between repetition and some energy parameter of the stimulus, and their interpresentation interval was so brief it might have been within an integration constant.…”

Section: Some Discussion Was Offered As To the Role Of An Auditory Inmentioning

confidence: 93%

How much help do repeated presentations give to recognition processes?

Dainoff

Haber

1967

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A recent experiment by Haber and Hershenson (1965) Research on temporal integration (e.g., Boynton, 1961) has suggested that within the integration period, it does not matter how presentations are distributed in time. Thus, two 10-msec. flashes are equivalent to one 20-msec. flash, and further, the separation between the two 10-msec. flashes is irrelevant as long as the total time from onset of the first to offset of the second does not exceed the integration constant. The value of the integration constant depends, of course, upon the relative luminances of the target and adaptation fields, as well as on the task of the perceiver (absolute threshold, judgment, discrimination of successiveness, brightness matching), but generally the upper limit is around 100 msec, Within this time then it is possible to chop up the total energy package and redistribute it helter-skelter in time without affecting the perceiver's responses to it.A similar kind of investigation can be pursued about a seemingly unrelated problem. Assume an energy package of fixed luminance, and of a duration of 50 msec., for example. Is the perceiver equally as efficient in recognizing the content of the stimulus in one presentation of 50 msec., as in two well separated (e.g., one-to-ten sec. apart) presentations of 25 msec., as in four presentations of 12-1/2 msec., etc.? Since these interstimulus intervals are several orders of magnitude larger than the integration constant, the answer would seem to be "no."However, some recent data showing the effect of repetition on word and letter recognition suggest that perhaps the "no" may be too hasty. A series of studies by Haber and Hershenson (1965), Hershenson and Haber (1965), Haber (1965), Haber and Hillman (1966) and Hershenson (1965), have shown that if words or letters are presented for from one to 25 times, with no change in duration or luminance, the clarity of the letters increases dramatically as a function of the number of repetitions. Thus, holding energy constant, the clarity of the letters of the stimulus increases with repetitions alone, even when the repetitions are spaced as much as 10 sec. apart. This effect is found with frequent English words, with Turkish words, with rare English words, with rare and frequent English words for which the subject is clearly shown each word just prior to its first presentation, with single English letters, and with three and four letter nonsense words. Further, in each case, the rate of increase in clarity of the letters of the stimuli follows the same mathematical function, indicating that the effect of repetition is independent of the structure and meaning of the stimulus. (See Haber, 1966a, for a summary of the earlier of these studies, and Haber, 1966b, for a more detailed discusston.)The relevance of these studies comes from the fact that repetition will increase the clarity of an item of the stimulus without changes in the intensity, duration, or other stimulus characteristics. Therefore, one can ask whether a reciprocity exists between these ene...

show abstract

Form recognition at brief durations as a function of adapting field and interval between stimulations.

Cited by 56 publications

References 20 publications

Luminance summation-contrast reduction as a basis for certain forward and backward masking effects

Luminance summation-contrast reduction as a basis for certain forward and backward masking effects

A steep backward masking curve

How much help do repeated presentations give to recognition processes?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About