Location confusions in visual information processing.

Dixon, Peter; Twilley, Leslie C.

doi:10.1037/h0084194

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On one hand, one may regard the result as an inherent part of the interference effect; that is, the interference effect consists of a tendency to make false alarms at short SOAs. This interpretation is supported by the robustness of this pattern of results: It was found in all five of the experiments reported by Dixon (1986), as well as in Dixon (1985), Dixon and Twilley (1988), and in some of the conditions of Briand and Klein (1988). On the other hand, one might regard the false alarm increase as a separate effect from the overall decrease in accuracy.…”

supporting

confidence: 60%

“…Recently, a number of researchers have reported an interference effect that occurs when subjects view a brief alphanumeric display followed by a single target item (Briand & Klein, 1988; Di Lollo & Moscovitch, 1983; Dixon, 1986; Dixon & Twilley, 1988). Generally, it is found that subjects' ability to decide whether the target item was present in the array is poor when the target follows the array by 100–200 ms, but improves with either longer or shorter stimulus-onset asynchronies (SOAs).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Perceptual information and response strategies: A comment on Briand and Klein.

Dixon¹

1988

Canadian Journal of Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologi

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This framework is based on the target-array confusion model described by Dixon and distinguishes between the available perceptual information subjects have to make a response and the strategies subjects use to combine this information and arrive at a decision. It is assumed that variations in response strategy will affect primarily the relative number of misses and false alarms in this paradigm and will leave overall per cent correct largely unaffected. Instead, per cent correct will be primarily a function of the available perceptual information. RKSLIME Nous proposons un cadre de travail pour discuter Tcffet d'interference trouvc par Briand ct Klein (1988), Di Ix>llo et Moscovitch (1983), et Dixon (1986. Ce cadre de travail est base sur le modele de confusion cible-rangee d6crit par Dixon et fait la distinction entre ('information perceptuellc disponible a laquclle les sujets doivent rcpondre et les strategies que les sujets utilisent pour combiner ccttc information en vue d'arriver a une decision. Nous assumons que des variations dans la strategic de reponsc affecteront principalement le nombre d'erreurs ct dc fausses alarmes dans ce paradigme tout en laissant intact lc pourcentage global correct. Celuici sera principalement fonction de 1'information perceptuelle disponible.Recently, a number of researchers have reported an interference effect that occurs when subjects view a brief alphanumeric display followed by a single target item (Briand & Klein, 1988; Di Lollo & Moscovitch, 1983;Dixon, 1986; Dixon & Twillcy, 1988). Generally, it is found that subjects' ability to decide whether the target item was present in the array is poor when the target follows the array by 100-200 ms, but improves with either longer or shorter stimulus-onset asynchronies (SOAs). This pattern of performance is reminiscent of metacontrast masking, in that performance is a U-shaped function of SOA. However, as argued by Di Lollo and Moscovitch and by Dixon, the interference is unlikely to be due to the same kind of mechanism: The effect occurs over larger spatial and temporal intervals than has been reported for metacontrast and is unaffected by a variety of display parameters that are important in visual masking, such as the spacing of the array items or the distance between the array and the target. Instead, it has been proposed that the interference effect is due to some interaction between the array and the target at a more symbolic or conceptual level (Di Lollo & Moscovitch).Dixon (1986) reported an intriguing aspect of this interference effect: Generally, the errors that subjects make at short SOAs are false alarms, in which subjects claim *Preparation of this article was supported by Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada Grant A8263. The author would like to thank h'red Morrison for comments on an earlier version. Address reprint requests to

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 60%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Perceptual information and response strategies: A comment on Briand and Klein.

Dixon¹

1988

Canadian Journal of Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologi

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The pseudoletters were constructed out of letter parts so that they would contain letter-like features but would not resemble any actual letter very strongly. The pseudoletters were modelled after those used by Dixon and Twilley (1988) and were also about 1.0° in height. The items were chosen randomly without replacement from the set of 26 letters or 26 pseudoletters.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of display luminance, stimulus meaningfulness, and probe duration on visible and schematic persistence.

Dixon¹,

Lollo²

1991

Canadian Journal of Psychology / Revue canadienne de psychologi

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Partial report performance is conceived of as consisting of Iwo independent sources of information: visible persistence and schematic persistence. Following the work of Di Lollo and Dixon (1988), these I wo sources of information were separated experimentally by varying intcrstimulus interval and stimulus onset asynchrony independently. In the present experiment we asked whether visible persistence and schematic persistence would be affected by display luminance, stimulus meaningfulness, or probe duration. The resulis were 111 accurately by an extension of the Di Lollo and Dixon independent-decay model in which display luminance affected visible persistence but stimulus meaningfulness ami probe duration affected neither form of persistence directly. KKSUMK On suggere quc la performance de rapports partiaux consisle en deux sources d'information independantes: persistence visible ct persistence sehematique. A partir des iravaux de Di Lollo et Dixon (1988), ces deux sources d'inlonnation ont etc separces expcrimcntalcment en variant indcpcndaniment I'intcrvallc inierstitnulus et l'asynchronie dans le declenehement du stimulus. Dans I'experience presente, nous avons. (ente de voir si les persistences visible et schematique ctaient affcctccs par la luminance dc I'afflchage. Les resultats obtenus vonl dans le sens du modele dc Di Lollo et Dixon scion lequel la luminance de I'affichage affecte la persistence visible alors que la signification du stimulus el la duree de I'cxplorution n'affeclenl directcment aucune des deux formes de persistence.

show abstract

“…Without representations, developed during an initial familiarizing or label-learning phase to provide top-down influence, the forms would have to be distinguished at the level of visual features (Dixon & Twilley, 1988). Lengthening the exposures as in Experiment 1 allows the subject more time to select and retain some feature or features that may be matched against those of items in the character set.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Separate processing of identity and location information during the transfer from the Feature Buffer to the Character Buffer allows scrambling that produces mislocations (Butler, 1981). Others have proposed that location information merely decays more quickly than identity information, leaving observers less sure of the relative positions of items than of their identities (Dixon, 1986; Dixon & Twilley, 1988). More recently, Driver and Baylis (1991) proposed that letter identities are derived in parallel rather than serially, although letter location information is not automatically produced when letter identity is determined.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Location coding with letters versus unfamiliar, familiar, and labeled letter-like forms.

Chastain¹

1995

Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology / Revue canadienne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Errors in reporting a postcued target within a string of several letters more often involve a letter appearing elsewhere in the string (mislocation error) than one not appearing in the string (intrusion error). However, mislocation errors are not more frequent than intrusion errors with strings of relatively unfamiliar symbols or forms, and two experiments were conducted to determine the reason for this difference. The first experiment showed that the difference is not an artifact of different overall accuracy levels or exposure durations for the two character types. The second experiment revealed that, relative to no experience, initial experience with the forms through familiarization or learning labels for them produced mislocation and intrusion frequencies that were more similar to those for letters. This change was related to the development of stored representations for forms that are similar to those for letters and are subject to the same influences that produce mislocation and intrusion patterns for them.Determining relative positions may be more difficult for some types of items than for others. Chastain (1994) presented displays comprised of a row of only letters or only symbols (slashes, parentheses, etc.). One character was cued for report by an indicator presented in the postexposure pattern mask, and the subject responded by pressing a key on a computer keyboard corresponding to that character. Subjects could make two types of errors: (1) indicating an item that was present elsewhere in the display but appeared to be in the postcued position (called a mislocation error), or (2) indicating an item that was not present anywhere in the display (an intrusion error). Mislocation errors were more frequent than intrusion errors for displays containing only letters, but not for displays containing only symbols. More mislocations than intrusions have been observed by others when letters were the stimuli (Butler & Currie, 1986;Butler, Mewhort, & Tramer, 1987;Chastain, 1990). The nature of the mental representations of stimuli producing these results is the focus of the current study. proposed a Dual-Buffer model involving

show abstract

Location confusions in visual information processing.

Cited by 5 publications

References 23 publications

Perceptual information and response strategies: A comment on Briand and Klein.

Perceptual information and response strategies: A comment on Briand and Klein.

Effects of display luminance, stimulus meaningfulness, and probe duration on visible and schematic persistence.

Location coding with letters versus unfamiliar, familiar, and labeled letter-like forms.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About