Redundancy gain in semantic categorisation

Shepherdson, Peter; Miller, Jeff

doi:10.1016/j.actpsy.2014.01.011

Cited by 12 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 105 publications

(284 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The first such study found no redundancy gains and concluded that capacity is limited, potentially (but not necessarily) due to a serial process (Mullin & Egeth, 1989). However, later studies reported contradictory results (Shepherdson & Miller, 2014, 2016).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Evidence of Serial Processing in Visual Word Recognition

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To test the limits of parallel processing in vision, we investigated whether observers can recognize two words at once. Observers viewed brief, masked pairs of words and were instructed in advance to judge both of the words (dualtask condition), or just one of the words (single-task condition). For judgments of semantic category, the dual-task deficit was so large that it supported serial processing: observers could only recognize one word and had to guess about the other. Moreover, observers were more likely to be correct about one word if they were incorrect than correct about the other, which supports a serial switching model. In contrast, judgments of text color with identical stimuli were consistent with unlimited-capacity parallel processing. Thus, serial processing is necessary to judge the meaning of words but not their physical features. Our findings inform a long-standing debate about the extent of parallel processing during reading.2

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Evidence of Serial Processing in Visual Word Recognition

2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Redundancy gain refers to the enhanced performance that arises when responses are based on multiple stimuli that converge on a single response, as opposed to a response based on a single stimulus. Although most of the evidence for this phenomenon is derived from relatively simple tasks, there is recent evidence that this phenomenon also applies to complex tasks, such as semantic categorization (Shepherdson & Miller, 2014). Redundancy gain would allow more efficient processing of the non-conflict trials, wherein responses based on multiple stimuli (beliefs and logic) converged on a single response.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When fast logic meets slow belief: Evidence for a parallel-processing model of belief bias

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments pitted the default-interventionist account of belief bias against a parallel-processing model. According to the former, belief bias occurs because a fast, belief-based evaluation of the conclusion pre-empts a working-memory demanding logical analysis. In contrast, according to the latter both belief-based and logic-based responding occur in parallel. Participants were given deductive reasoning problems of variable complexity and instructed to decide whether the conclusion was valid on half the trials or to decide whether the conclusion was believable on the other half. When belief and logic conflict, the default-interventionist view predicts that it should take less time to respond on the basis of belief than logic, and that the believability of a conclusion should interfere with judgments of validity, but not the reverse. The parallel-processing view predicts that beliefs should interfere with logic judgments only if the processing required to evaluate the logical structure exceeds that required to evaluate the knowledge necessary to make a belief-based judgment, and vice versa otherwise. Consistent with this latter view, for the simplest reasoning problems (modus ponens), judgments of belief resulted in lower accuracy than judgments of validity, and believability interfered more with judgments of validity than the converse. For problems of moderate complexity (modus tollens and single-model syllogisms), the interference was symmetrical, in that validity interfered with belief judgments to the same degree that believability interfered with validity judgments. For the most complex (three-term multiple-model syllogisms), conclusion believability interfered more with judgments of validity than vice versa, in spite of the significant interference from conclusion validity on judgments of belief.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.3758/s13421-016-0680-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…van der Heijden, 1975). Indeed, Mullin and Egeth (1989) found support for the serial processing of words but the study of Shepherdson and Miller (2014;2016) came to a contradictory conclusion.…”

Section: Relation To the Prior Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Divided Attention in Perception: A Unified Analysis of Dual-Task Deficits and Congruency Effects

Palmer

White

Moore

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How well can one perceive simultaneous stimuli at two widely spaced visual locations?Are the stimuli processed independently? If not, does the dependency affect perception, disrupt signals in later stages, or both? To address these questions, we measured effects of divided attention using a dual-task paradigm with stimuli presented in noise on either side of fixation.This paradigm was applied to detecting Gabor patches and to the semantic categorization of words. We measured dual-task deficits which are a decline in mean performance for a dual task compared to a single task. There was such a deficit for categorizing two words but relatively little deficit for detecting two Gabors. We also measured congruency effects which are when performance at one location depends on whether the stimulus at the other location requires the same response. There was such a congruency effect for detecting two Gabors but relatively little congruency effect for categorizing two words. Further experiments were consistent with the dual-task deficit in word categorization being perceptual, but the congruency effect in Gabor detection being due to later processes. Results of additional experiments showed that the congruency effect was consistent with either graded selection errors or with all-or-none selection followed by graded interactive processing. To answer our opening question: for Gabor detection, perceptual processes were largely independent but later processes caused congruency effects; for word categorization, perceptual processes had capacity limits but even in combination with later processes caused relatively little congruency effects. In summary, there was evidence for two different kinds of dependency. Such complementary dependencies are inconsistent with theories of divided attention that depend on a single dependency such as a single resource or single source of interactive processing.

show abstract

Redundancy gain in semantic categorisation

Cited by 12 publications

References 105 publications

Evidence of Serial Processing in Visual Word Recognition

Evidence of Serial Processing in Visual Word Recognition

When fast logic meets slow belief: Evidence for a parallel-processing model of belief bias

Divided Attention in Perception: A Unified Analysis of Dual-Task Deficits and Congruency Effects

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About