Parallel visual processing: Constant same-different decision latency with two to fourteen shapes

Donderi, D. C.; Case, Bruce W.

doi:10.3758/bf03212611

Cited by 28 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For the viewing times of the target object we obtained no significant differences between the same condition and the remaining difference types. These findings are in line with a parallel processing mode (Allport, 1971;Bamber, 1969;Bindra et al, 1968;Donderi & Case, 1970;Donderi & Zelnicker, 1969;Downing & Gossman, 1970;Egeth, 1966;Hawkins, 1969): If the identity check of all dimensions for a ''same'' decision had been conducted in a serial manner, the processing times would have been even longer than those for a ''different'' decision in size-discrepant shapes.…”

Section: Effects Of D-typesupporting

confidence: 61%

Tracking the time course of multidimensional stimulus discrimination: Analyses of viewing patterns and processing times during “same”-“different“ decisions

Belke¹,

Meyer²

2002

European Journal of Cognitive Psychology

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We investigated the time course of conjunctive ''same''-''different'' judgements for visually presented object pairs by means of combined reaction time and on-line eye movement measurements. The analyses of viewing patterns, viewing times, and reaction times showed that participants engaged in a parallel self-terminating search for differences. In addition, the results obtained for objects differing in only one dimension suggest that processing times may depend on the relative codability of the stimulus dimensions. The results are reviewed in a broader framework in view of higher-order processes. We propose that overspecifications of colour, often found in object descriptions, may have an ''early'' visual rather than a ''late'' linguistic origin. In a parallel assessment of the detection materials, participants overspecified the objects' colour substantially more often than their size. We argue that referential overspecifications of colour are largely attributable to mechanisms of visual discrimination.Discriminating objects in the outside world is a fundamental process for many higher-order processes. Referring to an object in the framework of similar context objects is closely tied to the detection of discriminative features. However, the visual and linguistic processes involved in such a ''referential

show abstract

Section: Effects Of D-typesupporting

confidence: 61%

Tracking the time course of multidimensional stimulus discrimination: Analyses of viewing patterns and processing times during “same”-“different“ decisions

Belke¹,

Meyer²

2002

European Journal of Cognitive Psychology

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It may have been due simply to a physical feature difference between members of the categories employed in these studies. There is good evidence that RT functions in visual search are flat when target and field items are highly discriminable along such physical dimensions as shape, as demonstrated by Donderi and Case (1970) and Donderi and Zelnicker (1969) with a same-different paradigm. There is also evidence that Ss trained to discriminate among alphanumeric characters on the basis of appropriate distinctive features eventually attain flat RT functions (Yonas, 1969; using a card-sorting task, a similar effect has been obtained by Rabbitt, 1967).…”

mentioning

confidence: 90%

A conceptual category effect in visual search: O as letter or as digit

Jonides

Gleitman

1972

Perception & Psychophysics

287

214

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies such as those of Hawkins (1969), Donderi and Case (1970), Allport (1971) argue against the possibility that the mixed attribute effect is due to limitations in storing information from two attributes, since responses to multiattribute probes can be as fast or accurate as to single attribute probes. Rather, it would appear that the explanation should be sought in the retrieval of target information and its comparison with the information arriving from the probe stimuli.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Critical issues with regard to the parallel processing branch include the question of whether there is some limit to the amount of "processing energies" available (Atkinson, Holmgren, & Juola, 1969;Moray, 1967;Taylor, Lindsey, & Forbes, 1967) or whether multiple codes can be accessed without limit.' Some studies in which the memory set consists of multiple attributes of a "single" stimulus (Hawkins, 1969;Donderi & Case, 1970;Allport, 1971; unpublished observations from our laboratory) have found that under certain circumstances a multiattribute stimulus can be processed as rapidly and as accurately as the most slowly processed single attribute stimulus. If we knew that the Sl codes were stored as independent attributes, these results would imply that up to a point, at least, parallel processing could be accomplished without limitation, that is, that there were no "overhead costs" for maintaining and accessing two or three attributes as compared to one.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

Relative frequency of attribute relevance and response times in visual search

Stone

Peeke

1974

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments, one using a between-Ss and one a within-Sa design, showed that response latencies to single attribute probe stimuli were longer when the target stimulus embodied two attributes (form and color) rather than a single attribute. The magnitude of this "mixed attribute effect" was influenced by the probability of attribute relevance, but the "probability effect" was mostly due to a "repetition effect," such that latencies on trials involving repetitions of the same attribute were shorter than when the relevant attribute was shifted. Implications of these results are drawn for the issues of holistic vs attributized representation of the target stimulus and serial vs parallel search of a set of attributes. Although no class of models can be ruled out on the basis of these experiments, constraints can be imposed on the versions of each that are compatible with the data presented.This report is concerned with the ways in which humans represent simple, visually presented stimuli in short-term memory and subsequently compare the representations with information from additional stimuli to guide a judgmental response. We introduced a novel variation on familiar experimental situations by presenting a multidimensional target stimulus, followed by unidimensional probes. We examine our data in relation to three broad classes of models: (1) "extraction models" in which the initial stimuli are represented in a holistic fashion with information extracted later according to the needs of the specific task (Lockhead, 1972); (2) parallel models, in which attributized representations are interrogated simultaneously over all attributes; and (3) serial models, in which attributes are evaluated one after another. Before considering the prior state of our knowledge regarding these matters, certain methodological comments seem appropriate.Two recent important papers by Townsend (1971Townsend ( , 1972 are sometimes cited as demonstrating the impossibility 'of distinguishing unequivocally between parallel and serial models of information processing. Townsend made no such claim. He did demonstrate that certain classes of parallel models could not be distinguished from certain other serial or hybrid models purely on the basis of the distributions of reaction times, although he gave examples of situations in which one of the formally equivalent alternatives could be rejected as psychologically implausible. A hoary tradition in psychology calls for the performing of "critical experiments": Two opposing theories are specified in considerable detail; one theory is falsified and the other is then claimed to have gained support. Townsend's papers call our attention to the fact that there are multiple alternative theories or models that could be proposed, and that individual experiments can at best

show abstract

Parallel visual processing: Constant same-different decision latency with two to fourteen shapes

Cited by 28 publications

References 3 publications

Tracking the time course of multidimensional stimulus discrimination: Analyses of viewing patterns and processing times during “same”-“different“ decisions

Tracking the time course of multidimensional stimulus discrimination: Analyses of viewing patterns and processing times during “same”-“different“ decisions

A conceptual category effect in visual search: O as letter or as digit

Relative frequency of attribute relevance and response times in visual search

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About