Recognition memory and attentional selection: Serial scanning is not enough.

Eriksen, Barbara A.; Eriksen, Charles W.; Hoffman, James E.

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.12.4.476

Cited by 32 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This research corresponds with previous work (Eriksen et al, 1986;Ste-Marie & Jacoby, 1993) to demonstrate how the influence of old vs. new distracters on target recognition can be used as an index of spontaneous recognition. Evidence of spontaneous recognition was most likely to be observed when memory performance was poor, with largest effects being observed when words were targets for older adults and young adults tested under conditions of divided attention.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, although not discussed as such, B. A. Eriksen, C. W. Eriksen, and Hoffman's (1986) use of a "flanker" procedure highlighted the distinction between spontaneous and directed recognition memory. In a procedure designed to investigate memory search processes, they presented sets of letters followed by a memory test that required participants to judge whether a probe letter was presented in the most recent set.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The effects of age and divided attention on spontaneous recognition

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies of recognition typically involve tests in which the participant's memory for a stimulus is directly questioned. There are occasions however, in which memory occurs more spontaneously (e.g., an acquaintance seeming familiar out of context). Spontaneous recognition was investigated in a novel paradigm involving study of pictures and words followed by recognition judgments on stimuli with an old or new word superimposed over an old or new picture. Participants were instructed to make their recognition decision on either the picture or word and to ignore the distracting stimulus. Spontaneous recognition was measured as the influence of old vs. new distracters on target recognition. Across two experiments, older adults and younger adults placed under divided-attention showed a greater tendency to spontaneously recognize old distracters as compared to full-attention younger adults. The occurrence of spontaneous recognition is discussed in relation to ability to constrain retrieval to goal-relevant information.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of age and divided attention on spontaneous recognition

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, B. A. Eriksen, C. W. Eriksen, and Hoffman (1986) found additive effects of memory set size and response compatibility, suggesting that irrelevant flankers are filtered out by selective attention before the memory comparison process is invoked. Assuming that the memory comparison process is part of the decision-making process, this indicates that irrelevant flankers activate responses by a path that bypasses the deliberate decision process set up by the subject to make explicit response selections.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response-compatibility effects in focused-attention tasks: A same-hand advantage in response activation

Miller

1988

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies have shown that responses can be partially activated by irrelevant stimuli in focused-attention tasks. In two experiments, such response activation was used to investigate the organization of keypress responses. Stimuli were rows of three letters, with a relevant target letter in the middle of the row and irrelevant flanker letters on the outside. There were four target letters, and these were assigned to four keypress responses made with the index and middle fingers of the two hands. Irrelevant flankers were parentheses, a neutral letter, or one of the four target letters. Responses were fastest when flankers were identical to the target, indicating facilitation of a response activated by both relevant and irrelevant letters. When flankers were response-incompatible target letters, responses were faster if these were target letters assigned to a response finger on the same hand as the correct response than if they were target letters assigned to a response finger on the opposite hand. The latter result is consistent with the hypothesis that simultaneous activation of two response fingers on the same hand produces faster responses than simultaneous activation of two response fingers on different hands, as assumed by Miller (1982). In Experiment 2, flankers were presented slightly before targets, and flankers that were same-hand target letters sometimes facilitated responses relative to the neutral parentheses flankers.In a series of papers concerning visual selective attention, C. W. Eriksen and his coworkers have documented a sizable response-compatibility effect of unattended stimuli. In one series of experiments, for example, subjects were presented with rows of letters and told to respond to the identity of the middle letter, ignoring the flanker letters on either side (C. W. Eriksen & Schultz, 1979). Even though the flankers were to be ignored, responses were faster when flankers were targets assigned to the same response as the relevant middle letter (response-compatible trials) than when flankers were target letters assigned to the opposite response (responseincompatible trials). Reaction time (RT) was intermediate when the flankers were response-neutral letters, indicating that target flankers produced both facilitation and inhibition.Two recent studies indicate that much or all of this response-compatibility effect is produced by competition in response activation processes. C. W. Eriksen, Coles, Morris, and O'Hara (1985) measured electromyographic (EMG) activity as an index of response activation. They found that response-incompatible displays caused more This research was supported by NIMH Grant PHS-MH40733. I would like to thank C. W. Eriksen, Patricia Haden, Roland Schaffer, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on earlier drafts of the paper, particularly suggestions leading to Experiment 2. I would also like to thank Grace Fang, Alann Lopes, Brent Roberts, and Thomica James

show abstract

“…There is a substantial body of work on the interaction of working memory and visual search (Poole & Kane, 2009; Sobel, Gerrie, Poole, & Kane, 2006). Holding an item in working memory influences the course of visual search (Balani, Soto, & Humphreys, 2010; Luria & Vogel, 2011; Olivers, Peters, Houtkamp, & Roelfsema, 2011; Soto, Heinke, Humphreys, & Blanco, 2005) (and vice versa (Eriksen, Eriksen, & Hoffman, 1986)). This leads to the hypothesis that the representation of the target (“search template”) resides in working memory, perhaps in an “active” subset of that working memory (Beck, Hollingworth, & Luck, 2011; Olivers et al, 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of object categories in hybrid visual and memory search.

Cunningham¹,

Wolfe

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

105

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In hybrid search, observers (Os) search for any of several possible targets in a visual display containing distracting items and, perhaps, a target. Wolfe (2012) found that responses times (RT) in such tasks increased linearly with increases in the number of items in the display. However, RT increased linearly with the log of the number of items in the memory set. In earlier work, all items in the memory set were unique instances (e.g. this apple in this pose). Typical real world tasks involve more broadly defined sets of stimuli (e.g. any “apple” or, perhaps, “fruit”). The present experiments show how sets or categories of targets are handled in joint visual and memory search. In Experiment 1, searching for a digit among letters was not like searching for targets from a 10-item memory set, though searching for targets from an N-item memory set of arbitrary alphanumeric characters was like searching for targets from an N-item memory set of arbitrary objects. In Experiment 2, Os searched for any instance of N sets or categories held in memory. This hybrid search was harder than search for specific objects. However, memory search remained logarithmic. Experiment 3 illustrates the interaction of visual guidance and memory search when a subset of visual stimuli are drawn from a target category. Furthermore, we outline a conceptual model, supported by our results, defining the core components that would be necessary to support such categorical hybrid searches.

show abstract

Recognition memory and attentional selection: Serial scanning is not enough.

Cited by 32 publications

References 20 publications

The effects of age and divided attention on spontaneous recognition

The effects of age and divided attention on spontaneous recognition

Response-compatibility effects in focused-attention tasks: A same-hand advantage in response activation

The role of object categories in hybrid visual and memory search.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About