On the nature of input channels in visual processing.

Bjork, Elizabeth Ligon; Murray, J. Thomas

doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.5.472

Cited by 188 publications

(281 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

247

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…First, single-pattern performance was typically better than that obtained when identical targets and nontargets were presented. A similar effect has been reported in the vision literature (Bjork& Murray, 1977;Eriksen & Schultz, 1979;Mozer, 1989). One interpretation of this finding is that the initial encoding involves the complete stimulus array as a global unit.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Perceptual processing of adjacent and nonadjacent tactile nontargets

Evans

Craig

Rinker

1992

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research has shown that subjects appear unable to restrict processing to a single finger and ignore a stimulus presented to an adjacent finger. Furthermore, the evidence suggests that, at least for moving stimuli, an adjacent nontarget is fully processed to the level of incipient response activation, The present study replicated and expanded upon these original findings. The results of Experiment 1 showed that an equally large response-competition effect occurred when the nontarget was presented to adjacent and nonadjacent fingers (on the same hand). The results of Experiment 2 showed that the effects observed in Experiment 1 (and in previous studies) were also obtained with stationary stimuli. Although small, there was some indication in the results of Experiment 2 that interference may dissipate more rapidly with distance with stationary stimuli. An additional finding was that interference effects were observed in both experiments with temporal separations between the target and nontarget of up to 100 msec. In Experiment 3, target and nontarget stimuli were presented to opposite hands. Although reduced, interference was still evident with target and nontarget stimuli presented to opposite hands. Varying the physical distance between hands did not produce any change in the amount of interference. The results suggest that the focus of attention on the skin extends nearly undiminished across the fingers of one hand and is not dependent upon the physical distance between sites of stimulation. 571A recent study by Evans and Craig (1991) indicated that subjects have difficulty focusing their attention on one finger and ignoring stimulation at an adjacent site. In this study, subjects were instructed to focus their attention on the left index fmger and to identify the direction of movement of the stimulus presented to that finger. A second stimulus, also moving, was presented to the middle finger, adjacent to the index finger. The stimuli moved in the same direction or in opposite directions. We reasoned that if subjects could restrict their attention to the target location, the presence of the nontarget would produce little, if any, interference. If, however, subjects are unable to restrict their attention to a single finger on one hand, then the direction of movement of the adjacent nontarget might interfere with target performance in a systematic fashion. Specifically, target performance might be interfered with when the direction of movement of the nontarget was opposite to that of the target. The results showed that when the target and nontarget moved in opposite directions, accuracy was reduced and response latencies (correct trials) This research was supported by Grant DC-00095 from the National Institutesof Health and was conducted while the first author was a visiting scholar in the Institute for the Study of Human Capabilities at Indiana University. The authors thank Roger P. Rhodes for his assistance in conducting these experiments. Reprint requests should be addressed to P. M. Evans, Department o...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 86%

Perceptual processing of adjacent and nonadjacent tactile nontargets

Evans

Craig

Rinker

1992

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, when error performance on the unrepeated trials is used as a measure to correct the size of RB (Park and Kanwisher, 1994) no significant reduction in the size of the effect has been found. Furthermore, although Fagot and Pashler (1994) failed to find RB in tasks that do not require full report of items, as expected by the hypothesis of retrieval interference, other studies, using a variety of experimental paradigms, have found RB independently of any requirement to overtly report both occurrences of a repeated item (e.g., Kanwisher et al, 1995, Exp.3;Mozer, 1989;Luo and Caramazza, 1995; see also Bjork and Murray, 1977, and Santee and Egeth, 1980.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 64%

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

Chialant

Caramazza

1997

Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…These experiments have been concerned with testing whether the recognition accuracy for target letters in a display is affected by the degree of feature similarity or featural overlap the target shares with noise letters in the display. In several of these experiments (Bjork & Murray, 1977; Santee & Egeth, 1980), the visual display was presented for a brief duration such that target identification was above chance but well below l00lJlo. The display was followed immediately by a noise mask.…”

Section: University Ofillinois At Urbana-champaign Urbana Illinois 6mentioning

confidence: 99%