Identity and similarity factors in repetition blindness: implications for lexical processing

Chialant, Doriana; Caramazza, Alfonso

doi:10.1016/s0010-0277(96)00789-5

Cited by 35 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These two types of orthographic inhibitions, though hard to tease apart, have different time-course patterns: RB for sub-lexical units occurs at short SOAs and the magnitude is reduced at longer SOAs (Harris & Morris, 2001;Yeh & Li, 2004). On the other hand, the character-level inhibition is suggested to be larger with longer SOA instead (see Chialant & Caramazza, 1997). Previous studies of Chinese character processing have reported inhibitory effects between orthographically-similar prime and target when their SOA was within the range of 43-57 ms (Chen & Shu, 2001;Perfetti & Tan, 1998;Wu & Chou, 2000).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…According to the holistic hypothesis based on the primed-CDT results, the inhibitory effect between orthographically-similar characters is due to the character-level inhibition (Wu & Chen, 2003) and the radical-RB effect should be observed only in HF characters. Furthermore, this effect should reveal an atypical pattern that the magnitude increases with the increasing SOA between C1 and C2 because the inhibition from character representations of C1 to the orthographically similar C2 is strongest at a few hundreds of milliseconds after the onset of C1 (see Chialant & Caramazza, 1997; though see Harris & Morris, 2001).…”

Section: C1 C2mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Binding radicals in Chinese character recognition: Evidence from repetition blindness

Chen

Yeh

2015

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: C1 C2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Binding radicals in Chinese character recognition: Evidence from repetition blindness

Chen

Yeh

2015

Journal of Memory and Language

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…One is that C1 is encoded well enough to cause token individuation and later report of that occurrence. In that case, identification of C2 is inhibited, either because it is mistakenly encoded as C1 (Bavelier et al, 1994) or because in the course of identifying C1, lexical neighbors such as C2 are inhibited (Chialant & Caramazza, 1997). In an alternative, C1 is not encoded well enough to cause token individuation and subsequent report.…”

Section: Experiments 4: Orthographic Repetition Blindnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repetition Blindness in Rapid Lists: Activation and Inhibition Versus Construction and Attribution.

Whittlesea¹,

Masson²

2005

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors examine the repetition blindness effect--the failure to report one of the occurrences of a word presented twice in a rapid list. This phenomenon has been ascribed to inhibitory processes that prevent immediate tokenization of the 2nd occurrence of a repeated word. The authors present several kinds of evidence against that account, including observations that repetition blindness (a) does not occur when repetitions are not embedded in a list of familiar orthographic units, (b) is alleviated by precuing the subject with the identity of the word that may repeat within a rapid list, and (c) can be caused by cues presented after the list, when the opportunity for inhibition has passed. It is proposed that repetition blindness can better be understood through the principles of construction and attribution.

show abstract

“…With word stimuli, the focus of interest here, there have been many demonstrations of RB, typically with an item duration of around 100 ms (Chialant & Caramazza, 1997;Kanwisher, 1987;Kanwisher & Potter, 1990). In the original studies, the word sequence was a sentence for complete report.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Repetition blindness in priming in perceptual identification: Competitive effects of a word intervening between prime and target

Burt

Jolley

2017

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

University students named a 72-ms masked target word that was preceded by two 120-ms consecutively presented words, a prime word followed by a distractor. In Experiment 1, all words were in lowercase letters, whereas in Experiment 2, the target word was changed to uppercase letters. In both experiments there was an accuracy and latency cost (repetition blindness: RB) when the prime was the same word as the target, with the cost much less severe in Experiment 2 than in Experiment 1. A low-frequency distractor impaired target identification compared with a high-frequency distractor. Distractor frequency interacted with target frequency such that high-frequency targets preceded by low-frequency distractors had the lowest accuracy. The results are consistent with a frequency-dependent competition for access to working memory among briefly displayed words. However, there was no clear evidence that effects of target repetition on interword competition play a role in RB. The effects of a letter case change for the target are consistent with a contribution of token distinctiveness to word-order recovery in the intervening-word priming task.

show abstract

Identity and similarity factors in repetition blindness: implications for lexical processing

Cited by 35 publications

References 45 publications

Binding radicals in Chinese character recognition: Evidence from repetition blindness

Binding radicals in Chinese character recognition: Evidence from repetition blindness

Repetition Blindness in Rapid Lists: Activation and Inhibition Versus Construction and Attribution.

Repetition blindness in priming in perceptual identification: Competitive effects of a word intervening between prime and target

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About