Left-right differences in tachistoscopic recognition as a function of order of report, expectancy, and training.

Freeburne, Cecil M.; Goldman, Roy D.

doi:10.1037/h0026874

Cited by 10 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…If 5"s are told in advance of presentation to report from right to left, right visual field superiority has been found, providing some support for the order-of-report hypothesis (Ayres, 1966;Freeburne & Goldman, 1969;Harcum et al, 1963). However, in all cases, increased error rates are found for right-to-left reporting, suggesting again that this is a more difficult task, possibly requiring 5s to use analyzing mechanisms which differ from those normally employed.…”

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Elimination of visual field effects by use of a single report technique: Evidence for order-of-report artifact.

Smith¹,

Ramunas²

1971

Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When 5s are asked to recall verbal materials tachistoscopically presented simultaneously in both visual fields, recall is typically better for items in the left visual field. Some £s have interpreted this finding as indicating a perceptual mechanism that necessitates scanning the memory trace in a left-toright order, with fading of the elements in the right field while those in the left are being scanned. An alternative explanation is that since 5s tend to report the items in a left-to-right order, there is fading of the memory trace for the right-hand elements during the relatively slow task of reporting the earlier items. In order to differentiate between the two theories, 5s were asked to report only one item, as indicated by tactile vibration of one of their fingers immediately after presentation of the visual materials. Using this technique, no left-right field differences were found. A second experiment examined the effect of varying the interval between presentation of items and occurrence of the signal indicating the letter which was to be recalled. Even with intervals of 2,000 msec., no left-right differences were found.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 83%

Elimination of visual field effects by use of a single report technique: Evidence for order-of-report artifact.

Smith¹,

Ramunas²

1971

Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Reading habits, attentional processes, and various types of dominance have been used to explain these results (see White, 1969). At least part of the reason for this difference in field superiorities when viewing unilateral and bilateral displays may be the order of reporting the stimulus display, since single-field (LVF or RVF) random report of bilateral displays (Fitzgerald & Marshall, 1967) and forced RVF-then-LVF report (Douglas, 1968;Freeburne & Goldman, 1969) yields RVF superiority.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hemiretinal effects in tachistoscopic letter recognition.

Do¹,

Sampson²,

Ja³

1971

Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 5s reported letters from unilateral and bilateral displays under all IS possible hemiretinal viewing conditions administered in random order. Right visual field superiority was found from unilateral displays and left visual field superiority from bilateral displays. The data also snowed that viewing with two hemiretinae is better than viewing with one hemiretina and that viewing with temporal hemiretinae is better than viewing with nasal hemiretinae. Comparisons of monocular, triple hemiretinal, and binocular viewing consistently demonstrated these results, and analysis of data collected under partial report instructions again showed superiority of temporal hemiretinal viewing.

show abstract

“…2 Requests for reprints should be directed to Walter F. Daves, Department of Psychology, Georgia State University, Atlanta, Georgia 30303. interaction of factors, including cerebral dominance (Bryden, 1966;Orbach, 1967), ocular dominance (Crovitz & Daves, 1962;Overton & Wiener, 1966), fading of the perceptual trace in interaction with a left to right postexposural scanning process (Bryden, 1961;Heron, 1957;Terrace, 1959), and order of report, that is, left to right or vice versa (Braine, 1968;Freeburne & Goldman, 1969).…”

Section: Georgia Stale Universitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Recognition of English and Hebrew letters as a function of age and display predictability.

Daves¹,

Werzberger²

1971

Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Presented 6 english or hebrew consonants on each of 40 trials to right and left of fixation of 98 1st-7th graders, learning both english and hebrew in a hebrew day school. For 1/2 the ss the language of the display was predictable, and for the other 1/2 displays were randomly intermixed. There was a developmental increase in total letters correct for both languages, and a decrease in the tendency to favor 1 side of the display. No evidence was found for a developmental change in the side favored for either language. English was recognized better on the left, hebrew about equally on both sides, but with considerable individual differences. The generally greater preference for the left in the random than in the predictable group suggests that directional processes initiated during a trial contribute significantly to the asymmetry of report accuracy. Individual differences in susceptibility to the biasing effect of language were prominent.

show abstract

Left-right differences in tachistoscopic recognition as a function of order of report, expectancy, and training.

Cited by 10 publications

References 7 publications

Elimination of visual field effects by use of a single report technique: Evidence for order-of-report artifact.

Elimination of visual field effects by use of a single report technique: Evidence for order-of-report artifact.

Hemiretinal effects in tachistoscopic letter recognition.

Recognition of English and Hebrew letters as a function of age and display predictability.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About