Repetition Blindness in Rapid Lists: Activation and Inhibition Versus Construction and Attribution.

Whittlesea, Bruce W. A.; Masson, Michael E. J.

doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.1.54

Cited by 28 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(61 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A more complex approach that also emphasizes retrieval strategies was proposed by Whittlesea and colleagues (Whittlesea, Dorken, & Podrouzek, 1995;Whittlesea & Wai, 1997) and recently was expanded by Masson (2004;Whittlesea & Masson, 2005). This constructionist account of RB assumes that the effects are due primarily to impairments result in a second detection, even if it raises the node's activation level, unless sufficient time has elapsed to allow the threshold or node activation to return to resting level.…”

Section: Memory and Reconstruction Accounts Of Rbmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repetition blindness in sentence contexts: Not just an attribution?

Bond¹,

Andrews

2008

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repetition blindness (RB) refers to the failure to report both occurrences of a repeated item in a series of rapidly presented visual stimuli. For instance, the sentence When she spilled the ink there was ink all over, presented word by word at a rate of around 100 msec/word, may be reported as "When she spilled the ink there was all over" (Kanwisher, 1987), even though the sequence is nongrammatical. RB also occurs for repeated items in lists of words and pictures (see Coltheart, 1999, for reviews), but the phenomenon is particularly striking in sentences, where its occurrence generally fails to respect the constraints of coherence or syntax. This has contributed to accounts that locate the phenomenon at the lexical level, rather than at the later stages of memory and recall. In the experiments reported here, novel variations of the standard RB sentence-processing paradigm were used to shed further light on the relative contribution of bottom-up and top-down processes to RB and, more generally, on the role of lexical activation in sentence processing. Kanwisher's (1987) original interpretation of RB drew upon the distinction between types and tokens. Reporting the identity of an item in a stimulus sequence requires not only activation of the existing representation of the item's type representation in memory, but also creation of a token representing the occurrence of that type in the processing episode (Kahneman & Treisman, 1984). For example, the conceptual processing required to build a coherent structure from the words of a sentence requires more than activation of word types in lexical memory; comprehension and recall depend on establishing tokens of these words and the sentential relationships between them in that specific sentence. In this framework, RB is the consequence of a perceptual limitation that impairs the rapid creation of separate tokens for two occurrences of the type. Type-Token Accounts of RBThere are two major variants of this type-token account that propose different sources for RB. According to the type refractoriness hypothesis, RB is due to the activation dynamics of type nodes, rather than to a problem with token formation or binding. The representation of a particular stimulus undergoes a period of reduced sensitivity immediately after firing, by analogy with the refractoriness of neurons. Accordingly, if the stimulus appears twice in close succession, the second occurrence may be unable to increase the node's activation enough to be recognized or induce a response. The second class of models attributes RB to problems in token individuation. Even though the two separate occurrences are both "recognized" at the type level, formation of a second token from a single type is briefly inhibited after the first token is individuated (e.g., Kanwisher, 1987).The type refractoriness hypothesis has been formalized in dynamical models based on a signal detection approach that implement a "rudimentary form of adaptation" (Bavelier & Jordan, 1992, p. 883). Bavelier and Jordan's model assumes that ...

show abstract

Section: Memory and Reconstruction Accounts Of Rbmentioning

confidence: 99%

Repetition blindness in sentence contexts: Not just an attribution?

Bond¹,

Andrews

2008

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This deficit is thought to reflect a capacity limit of individuation, because it is strongest when the two targets appear within close temporal or spatial proximity (e.g., Chun 1997;Kanwisher 1987). Kanwisher's account views RB as a perceptual phenomenon, yet other models propose that RB has a later locus, reflecting a retrieval bias or failure (Fagot and Pashler 1995;Whittlesea and Masson 2005). However, because RB has been observed in tasks that have very low memory demands or require immediate responses, there appears to be a significant perceptual component to the effect (e.g., Anderson and Neill 2002;Dux and Marois 2007;Johnston et al 2002).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The neural basis of temporal individuation and its capacity limits in the human brain

Naughtin

Tamber-Rosenau

Dux

2014

Journal of Neurophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individuation refers to individuals' use of spatial and temporal properties to register an object as a distinct perceptual event relative to other stimuli. Although behavioral studies have examined both spatial and temporal individuation, neuroimaging investigations of individuation have been restricted to the spatial domain and at relatively late stages of information processing. In this study we used univariate and multivoxel pattern analyses of functional magnetic resonance imaging data to identify brain regions involved in individuating temporally distinct visual items and the neural consequences that arise when this process reaches its capacity limit (repetition blindness, RB). First, we found that regional patterns of blood oxygen level-dependent activity in a large group of brain regions involved in "lower-level" perceptual and "higher-level" attentional/executive processing discriminated between instances where repeated and nonrepeated stimuli were successfully individuated, conditions that placed differential demands on temporal individuation. These results could not be attributed to repetition suppression, stimulus or response factors, task difficulty, regional activation differences, other capacity-limited processes, or artifacts in the data or analyses. Consistent with the global workplace model of consciousness, this finding suggests that temporal individuation is supported by a distributed set of brain regions, rather than a single neural correlate. Second, conditions that reflect the capacity limit of individuation (instances of RB) modulated the amplitude, rather than spatial pattern, of activity in the left hemisphere premotor cortex. This finding could not be attributed to response conflict/ambiguity and likely reflects a candidate brain region underlying the capacity-limited process that gives rise to RB.

show abstract

“…Explanations for repetition blindness have tended to focus on the extent to which each presentation activates a single representation (or type; Kanwisher, 1987Kanwisher, , 1991Chun, 1997) in long-term memory (though see Armstrong & Mewhort, 1995;Masson, 2004;and Whittlesea & Masson, 2005; for alternative views). RB is thought to occur when an attempt is made to bind a spatiotemporal marker of the second stimulus presentation to an object representation in long-term memory; if the long-term memory representation has only just been activated to form an episodic trace of the first stimulus, binding a marker for the second stimulus to the same representation may fail due to competition with the first binding process.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Repetition blindness for rotated objects.

Hayward

Zhou²,

Man

et al. 2010

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repetition blindness (RB) is the finding that observers often miss the repetition of an item within a rapid stream of words or objects. Recent studies have shown that RB for objects is largely unaffected by variations in viewpoint between the repeated items.In 5 experiments, we tested RB under different axes of rotation, with different types of stimuli (line drawings and shaded images, intact and split), using both novel and familiar objects. Although RB was largely viewpoint invariant, in most experiments, RB was reduced for small (0°) and large (180°) viewpoint differences relative to intermediate rotations. However, these deviations from invariance were eliminated when object images were split, breaking the holistic coherence of the object. These findings suggest that RB is due mainly to the activation of object representations from local diagnostic features, but can be modulated by priming on the basis of view similarity.The human visual system is capable of processing tremendous amounts of information that vary across both spatial and temporal scales. In order to effectively guide the organism around its environment, important information must be detected and then attended to by conscious processes within very short periods of time. A striking phenomenological demonstration of this effect is perception of rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) streams of objects. For example, participants can successfully detect a target object presented within an RSVP stream in which objects are replaced every 100 ms (Potter & Levy, 1969). This ability requires the fast activation of stored object information, and flexible attentional processes that can update quickly for each presentation.One important constraint on detection of objects within RSVP streams is repetition blindness (RB). If an object is repeated within a single RSVP stream, observers will often report seeing it only once. Thus, while conceptual knowledge about the object is activated, the observer seems unable to keep the two presentations separate in episodic memory. The first demonstration of RB used verbal stimuli, both within seemingly random lists of words and within meaningful sentences (Kanwisher, 1987). In both, repeated words were missed; in the latter context, participants sacrificed sentence grammaticality in failing to report the repeated item. Later experiments used pictorial stimuli instead of (or in conjunction with) verbal materials. For example, Bavelier (1994) investigated RB for both words and pictures. She found significant RB for both types of stimuli, though somewhat reduced in magnitude for pictures. She also found RB across changes in stimulus format, so that if the first critical stimulus (C1) was a picture of an object and the second critical stimulus (C2) was the name of the object, RB was still observed. This result is strong evidence that RB is caused by activation of stimulus information that is not tied to a particular format of presentation, but rather occurs at a deeper conceptual level.Explanations for repetition blindness...

show abstract

Repetition Blindness in Rapid Lists: Activation and Inhibition Versus Construction and Attribution.

Cited by 28 publications

References 38 publications

Repetition blindness in sentence contexts: Not just an attribution?

Repetition blindness in sentence contexts: Not just an attribution?

The neural basis of temporal individuation and its capacity limits in the human brain

Repetition blindness for rotated objects.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About