Holistic vs. attribute repetition effects in classifying stimuli

Lockhead, Gregory R.; Gruenewald, Paul J.; King, Michael C.

doi:10.3758/bf03197477

Cited by 18 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The highest pitched stimuli in Experiment 3A, for instance, will follow each possible pitch transition (from 0 to 11 steps) equally often, whereas stimuli with more medial values of pitch will only have smaller pitch transitions (e.g., from oto 6 steps). We also know that RTs are longer to larger stimulus transitions than to smaller transitions (King, Gruenewald, & Lockhead, 1978). Therefore, even though RTs as a function of sequence were similar for both outlier and cluster stimuli (as demonstrated in Experiment 3B), the RTs averaged across all trials should be longer for the outlier stimuli than for the central stimuli, because there are many more instances oflarge differences between successive stimuli when outliers are judged than when central stimuli are judged.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…Fletcher (1981) concluded that the presence or absence of repetition effects depends on practice: Early in practice, subjects displaya strong stimulus repetition effect, which progresses into a response repetition effect later in practice (see also Bertelson, 1965;Rabbitt, 1968). Pashler and Baylis (1991) report that response-repetition effects, as separate from stimulus-repetition effects, occur only when the category members differ on some superficial attribute (e.g., color, in a letter classification task; see also Lockhead, Gruenewald, & King, 1978). Several things need to be untangled for us to understand what occurs when people judge stimulus attributes; some of them are examined here.…”

Section: Sequence Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Range effects of an irrelevant dimension on classification

Huettel

Lockhead

1999

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In univariate classification tasks, subjects sort stimuli on the basis of the only attribute that varies. In orthogonal classification tasks, often calledfiltering tasks, there additionally are trial-to-trial variations in irrelevant attributes that the subjects are instructed to ignore. Performance is generally slower in filtering tasks than in univariate control tasks. Weinvestigated this slowing in experiments of how the range of irrelevant trial-to-trial variation affects responses in pitch/loudness classification tasks. Using two levels of pitch and of loudness as stimuli, Experiment 1 replicated prior work showing that responses are slowed more when the range of the irrelevant dimension is made larger. Also in Experiment 1,sequential analyses showed that response time depends both on sequence and on the stimulus set independent of sequence. Experiments 2 and 3 used several levels on the irrelevant dimension and showed that responses to categorize loudness are slowed more by larger trial-to-trial pitch differences, but only on trials when the response repeats. When the response changes, performance is essentially unaffected by trial-to-trial irrelevant variation. This interaction supports the conclusion that slowed average performance in orthogonal classification tasks, which is known as Garner interference, is not due to difficulties that subjects have in filtering stimulus attributes. It is due to how subjects process successive stimulus differences. Wecall for more frequent reports of sequential analyses, because these can reveal information that is not available from data averages.Often, people cannot ignore irrelevant information when they classify a stimulus attribute. For example, when people are asked to classify auditory tones according to pitch, their performance is worse (slower and with more errors) when the timbre of the tone varies randomly between trials than if the timbre remains fixed between trials (Crowder, 1989). Irrelevant variation in loudness similarly interferes with performance when tones are classified according to pitch (Lockhead, 1992b;Melara & Mounts, 1994).This result-the fact that irrelevant variation on one dimension interferes with classification on another dimension-is called Garner interference (Gamer, 1974). Whenever there is such interference, the stimulus dimensions interact, which is contrary to what should occur if people could abstract a feature from a stimulus and process it independently ofother features, as Stevens (1975) proposed. There have been many attempts to understand this apparent interference (Garner, 1970; Lockhead, 1966 Lockhead, , 1992bMelara & Marks, 1990;Melara & O'Brien, 1987;Pomerantz & Garner, 1973;Shepard, 1964), none of which was fully successful. Each ofthese attempts addressed characteristics of individual stimuli, and all of these experimental approaches compared average perforThis research was partially supported by a National Science Foundation fellowship to S.A.H. Correspondence should be addressed to S. A. Huettel, Department of Psycho...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Sequence Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Range effects of an irrelevant dimension on classification

Huettel

Lockhead

1999

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, the present study asked whether the effects of visual dimension changes and of response changes would interact at some point in the processing, which may be expected from the behavioral literature (e.g., Hommel, 1998;Kingstone, 1992;Lockhead et al, 1978).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selective and interactive neural correlates of visual dimension changes and response changes

Pollmann

Weidner

Müller³

et al. 2006

NeuroImage

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In an event-related fMRI study, we investigated the neural correlates of visual dimension and response changes. We used a compound task, which required target selection by a singleton feature, a unique color or motion direction, before the appropriate motor response, which was determined by target orientation, could be selected. Both types of change elicited distinct patterns of activation, with dimension-changerelated activation primarily in posterior visual areas and responserelated activation primarily in motor-related areas of the parietal and frontal cortices. Response-change-related activation was delayed by about 1 s relative to dimension-change-related activation, suggesting that the latter is elicited by perceptual processes, whereas the former reflects response-related or post-response processes. Although dimension changes and response changes rely on different processes, they are not independent: response facilitation was observed for combined dimension and response repetitions, this facilitation, however, was disrupted by dimension changes. D

show abstract

“…As such, the statistical interaction between the first-order defining-feature repetition effect and the first-order reported-feature repetition effect could be seen to challenge the independence of the two effects. However, when participants are asked to respond to a single dimension of multidimensional stimuli, it is common to find that repetition ofthe reported dimension interacts with repetition of the irrelevant dimension (Fletcher, 1981;Hommel, 1998;Lockhead, Gruenewald, & King, 1978). Such an interaction typically takes the following form.…”

Section: Mmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repetition effects in visual search

Hillstrom

2000

Perception & Psychophysics

248

301

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maljkovic and Nakayama (1994) demonstrated an automatic benefit of repeating the defining feature of the target in search guided by salience. Thus, repetition influences target selection in search guided by bottom-up factors. Four experiments demonstrate this repetition effect in search guided by topdown factors, and so the repetition effect is not merely part of the mechanism for determining what display elements are salient. The effect is replicated in singleton search and in three situations requiring different degrees of top-down guidance: when the feature defining the target is less salient than the feature defining the response, when there is more than one singleton in the defining dimension, and when the target is defined by a conjunction of features. Repetition does not change the priorities of targets, relative to distractors: Display size affects search equally whether the target is repeated or changed. More than one mechanism may underlie the repetition effect in different experiments, but assuming that there is a unitary mechanism, a short-term episodic memory mechanism is proposed.Visual search for a target amid multiple nontargets, or distractors, is a complex perceptual task that can be used to study visual attention. Most models ofvisual search have two stages involved in target selection (Egeth, 1977). The first is a pre attentive stage that registers visual features in parallel and segments the visual scene into coarsely represented objects, according to principles such as those outlined by Marr (1982). This first stage also yields a prioritization of display elements that subsequently guides attention, a prioritization that is theorized to be influenced by both bottom-up factors (e.g., the perceptibility, or salience, of the object in the scene) and top-down factors (e.g., the foreknowledge and strategies of the searcher). The preattentive stage is followed by a stage in which attention is focused on elements according to the priorities assigned in the first stage, in order to identify the elements better and choose responses.Memory is crucial to visual search: A representation of what defines the target must be held in memory in order to know when search has ended. Memory for target definitions is particularly important in the preattentive prioritization stage if the target is well defined, as when a searcher knows exactly what the target will look like. If the target is more conceptually defined-for instance, when the searcher knows only that the target will look different from the distractors-it is less obvious what sort of explicit target template would be used to set priorities. But recent work by Maljkovic and Nakayama (1994) on repetition effects in search for salient targets has demonstrated a role for implicit memory in search that is guided largely by bottom-up factors, rather than by a well-elaborated target definition. The participants responded to the orientation of a target that was defined as a color singleton (either the single red element among green elements or the single gr...

show abstract

Holistic vs. attribute repetition effects in classifying stimuli

Cited by 18 publications

References 20 publications

Range effects of an irrelevant dimension on classification

Range effects of an irrelevant dimension on classification

Selective and interactive neural correlates of visual dimension changes and response changes

Repetition effects in visual search

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About