Independence versus interference in the perceptual processing of letters

Santee, Jeffrey L.; Egeth, Howard E.

doi:10.3758/bf03206210

Cited by 41 publications

(32 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Identical images were used for the congruent condition, rather than different images from the same category, so as to avoid inducing conflict due to condition ambivalence (e.g. Santee and Egeth, 1982, Perception & Psychophysics).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of distractor congruency on stimulus processing in retinotopic visual cortex

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The brain is frequently confronted with sensory information that elicits conflicting response choices. While much research has addressed the top down control mechanisms associated with detection and resolution of response competition, the effects of response competition on sensory processing in the primary visual cortex remain unclear. To address this question we modified a typical ‘flanker task’ (Eriksen and Eriksen, 1974) so that the effects of response competition on human early retinotopic visual cortex could be assessed. Healthy human participants were scanned using fMRI while making a speeded choice response that classified a target object image into one of two categories (e.g. fruits, animals). An irrelevant distractor image that was either congruent (same image as target), incongruent (image from opposite category as target), or neutral (image from task-irrelevant category, e.g. household items) was also present on each trial, but in a different quadrant of the visual field relative to the target. Retinotopic V1 areas responding to the target stimuli showed increased response to targets in the presence of response-incongruent (compared to response-neutral) distractors. A negative correlation with behavioral response competition effects indicated that an increased primary visual cortical response to targets in the incongruent (vs. neutral) trials is associated with a reduced response competition effect on behavior. These results suggest a novel conflict resolution mechanism in the primary visual cortex.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The impact of distractor congruency on stimulus processing in retinotopic visual cortex

2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based on our functions, their closest spacing is beyond the range of contour interaction, so no spacing effect would be expected. Santee and Egeth (1982) used separations of .2 0, .6 0 , and 1.8 0 and reported no effect of spacing. In order to accomplish the varied spacing, however, they presented the stimuli around circles with increasing diameters.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contour interaction as a function of retinal eccentricity

Wolford

Chambers

1984

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Targets (squares with a gap on one side) were presented 0 0 , 2 0 , or 50 from the center of the fovea. The targets were surrounded by bar masks, and the spacing between targets and masks was varied parametrically. The resulting functions were used to estimate the extent of contour interaction at different target eccentricities. Our estimates for the extent of contour interaction were approximately .1 0 for targets at the center of the fovea, .24 0 for targets located 2 0 from the center, and .8 0 for targets 50 into the periphery.Lateral masking refers to the finding that the probability of correctly identifying a target is reduced when that target is surrounded by other items. Lateral masking has been demonstrated by a number of investigators (e.g., Bouma, 1970;Estes & Wolford, 1971;Mackworth, 1965). In this paper, we examine the effect of target-mask separation at different retinal eccentricities.In a recent paper, we argued that lateral masking was a composite of at least three components. One component was sensory interaction at the level of contours or features (Flom, Weymouth, & Kahneman, 1963). We will refer to this as contour interaction. A second component was the allocation of some attention or capacity to the masks that might otherwise be available for the target (Banks, Larson, & Prinzmetal, 1979;Kahneman & Henik, 1977). This might occur because of some uncertainty as to what is target and what is mask (Wolford & Chambers, 1983), or, perhaps, because some attention is automatically allocated to the masks as well as to the target. We will refer to this as competition for attentional resources. A third component occurs when the masks are drawn from the set of possible targets. Performance is facilitated when the target and mask are assigned to the same response, but inhibited when the target and mask are assigned to different responses (Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974). We will refer to this as response competition. Wolford and Chambers (1983) argued that all three factors were involved in lateral masking. Their relative in fluences depend on a variety of factors such as the spacing between the target and the mask, the type of masks used, and the configuration of the display in terms of possibilities for perceptual grouping. They further argued that contour interaction was especially prevalent when the target and the mask were closely spaced, and demonstrated that lateral masks have qualitatively different effects at close spacing than they do at wider spacing. They concluded that, at close spacing, contour interaction was the We would like to thank Carol Fowler for her helpful comments on the manuscript. Reprint requests should be sent to George Wolford, Department of Psychology, Dartmouth College, Hanover, NH 03755. 457 dominant factor in lateral masking, but that at more distant spacing contour interaction ceased to playa role. La Heij and van der Heijden (1983) also argue that contour interaction ("feature-specific interference," in their terms) is obtained only at close spacing.Over what separation does ...

show abstract

“…To this end, we combined a picture verification task with backward masking, in which a briefpresentation ofthe depicted object (the stimulus) is followed by a patterned stimulus of much longer duration (the mask). Varying the stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA), the time interval between stimulus and mask, can provide a method ofstudying perceptual mechanisms that operate at early stages of processing (Santee & Egeth, 1982;Sperling, 1963), whereas RT reflects all the processes, including those that operate at late stages. Indeed, RTs in visual recognition tasks may be more sensitive to later processes, as can be illustrated by a direct comparison between RTs and SOAs for judgments of'numerosity (Liss & Reeves, 1983).…”

Section: Testing a Postrecognition Account Of View Dependency With Bamentioning

confidence: 99%

Rotating objects to determine orientation, not identity: Evidence from a backward-masking/dual-task procedure

Reeves

2000

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of picture-plane rotations on times taken to name familiar objects (RTs) may reflect a process of mental rotation to stored viewpoint-specific representations: the rotate-to-recognize hypothesis. Alternatively, mental rotation might be used after stored object representations are activated by a misoriented stimulus in order to verify a weak or distorted shape percept: the double-checking hypothesis. Wetested these two accounts of rotation effects in object recognition by having subjects verify the orientations (to within 90°) and basic-level names of 14-msec, backward-masked depictions of common objects. The stimulus-mask interval (SOA) varied from 14 to 41 msec, permitting interpolation of the SOA required for 75% accuracy (SOA c ) ' Whereas the SOA c to verify orientation increased with rotation up to 180°,the SOA c to verify identity was briefer and asymptoted at _60°. We therefore reject the rotate-to-recognize hypothesis, which implies that SOA c should increase steadily with rotation in both tasks. Instead, we suggest that upright and near-upright stimuli are matched by a fast direct process and that misoriented stimuli are matched at a featural level by a slightly slower viewindependent process. We also suggest that rotation effects on RTs reflect a post recognition stage of orientation verification: the rotate-to-orient hypothesis, a version of double-checking that also explains the well-known reduction in orientation effects on RTs when naming repeated objects.

show abstract

Independence versus interference in the perceptual processing of letters

Cited by 41 publications

References 52 publications

The impact of distractor congruency on stimulus processing in retinotopic visual cortex

The impact of distractor congruency on stimulus processing in retinotopic visual cortex

Contour interaction as a function of retinal eccentricity

Rotating objects to determine orientation, not identity: Evidence from a backward-masking/dual-task procedure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About