Repetition blindness: An emergent property of inter-item competition☆☆☆

Morris, Alison L.; Still, Mary L.; Caldwell‐Harris, Catherine L.

doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2008.08.001

Cited by 19 publications

(68 citation statements)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It is also consistent with models that attribute the disappearance of a repeated item to low activation caused by a refractory period (Luo & Caramazza, 1995. It also fits with models that assume that masking from the different items in the display causes the repeated item to disappear (e.g., Morris, Still, & Caldwell-Harris, 2009). Finally, it fits with models that assume that the perceptual construction of repeated items is damaged, where construction includes the attachment of an event to its context (e.g., Masson, Caldwell, & Whittlesea, 2000;Whittlesea & Hughes, 2005).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

Repetition blindness: The survival of the grouped

Goldfarb

Treisman

2011

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The repetition blindness (RB) effect demonstrates that people often fail to detect the second presentation of an identical object (e.g., Kanwisher, 1987). Grouping of identical items is a well-documented perceptual phenomenon, and this grouping generally facilitates perception. These two effects pose a puzzle: RB impairs perception, while perceptual grouping improves it. Here, we combined these two effects and studied how they interact. In a series of three experiments, we presented repeated items in a simultaneous string, while manipulating the organization of the repeated items in groups within a string. We observed an interaction between RB and grouping that we summarize with a rule that we call "the survival of the grouped": In essence, the ability to group repeated elements protects them from RB. These findings are discussed within the framework of the object file theory.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 70%

Repetition blindness: The survival of the grouped

Goldfarb

Treisman

2011

Psychon Bull Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…If the theory is correct with respect to RB, competition by the distractor should modulate RB. Whether RB also interacts with target word frequency on the Morris et al (2009) model depends upon on the overall magnitude of RB, so precise predictions about an RB × Frequency interaction cannot easily be made. More detailed predictions follow.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In the studies of Leggett et al, there was no requirement to find repeats, suggesting that there may be additional reasons for the difficulty posed by word distractors. Specifically, interitem competition (Morris et al, 2009) may contribute to the substantial RB found for word distractors but not random-letter distractors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, their model is inspired by the reduction in the neural response to a repeated stimulus, termed repetition suppression (Grill-Spector, Henson, & Martin, 2006). Morris et al (2009) note that although a recently presented item invokes a sharper activation response, with a resulting increase in the signal-to-noise ratio that facilitates identification, there is a reduction in the total activation (signal plus noise). Under time pressure, this reduction in total activation puts the item at a disadvantage in competition with other stimuli.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Morris, Still, and Caldwell-Harris (2009) supposed that in RSVP, given the absence of sustained activation of each item, there is competition between a current item and an immediately preceding or following item for access to awareness. It is supposed that access can be achieved for only one item at a time.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Repetition blindness in priming in perceptual identification: Competitive effects of a word intervening between prime and target

Burt

Jolley

2017

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

University students named a 72-ms masked target word that was preceded by two 120-ms consecutively presented words, a prime word followed by a distractor. In Experiment 1, all words were in lowercase letters, whereas in Experiment 2, the target word was changed to uppercase letters. In both experiments there was an accuracy and latency cost (repetition blindness: RB) when the prime was the same word as the target, with the cost much less severe in Experiment 2 than in Experiment 1. A low-frequency distractor impaired target identification compared with a high-frequency distractor. Distractor frequency interacted with target frequency such that high-frequency targets preceded by low-frequency distractors had the lowest accuracy. The results are consistent with a frequency-dependent competition for access to working memory among briefly displayed words. However, there was no clear evidence that effects of target repetition on interword competition play a role in RB. The effects of a letter case change for the target are consistent with a contribution of token distinctiveness to word-order recovery in the intervening-word priming task.

show abstract