Repetition blindness under minimum memory load: Effects of spatial and temporal proximity and the encoding effectiveness of the first item

Abstract

Repetition blindness (RB) refers to the reduced performance in reporting a repeated as opposed to a nonrepeated item in rapid serial visual presentation. In Experiment 1, we found RB for two-item stimuli in uncertain locations. The magnitude of RB decreased significantly with increases in interstimulus interval, but not with increases in spatial separation, indicating that RB is determined primarily by temporal factors. In Experiment 2, we found RB when subjects were required to report only the second of two successively presented items. The magnitude of RB increased with the duration of the first item, indicating that RB is determined by the encoding effectiveness of the first item. The results of this study collectively indicate that RB is not a memory or a sensory phenomenon, but rather a perceptual phenomenon occurring at the stage of identity encoding. The findings also undermine the arguments (Kanwisher, 1987) that have been offered in favor of the type-token binding failure hypothesis and indicate instead that type-node refractoriness may be the cause of RB.

Categorical information influences conscious perception: An interaction between object-substitution masking and repetition blindness

“…However, spatial RB is not dependent on these dual-item report requirements, and is robustly observed even when participants only have to report a single item (Luo & Caramazza, 1995). The number of items to report, therefore, does not distinguish the present experiment from RB.…”

Identity and similarity factors in repetition blindness: implications for lexical processing

“…However, when error performance on the unrepeated trials is used as a measure to correct the size of RB (Park and Kanwisher, 1994) no significant reduction in the size of the effect has been found. Furthermore, although Fagot and Pashler (1994) failed to find RB in tasks that do not require full report of items, as expected by the hypothesis of retrieval interference, other studies, using a variety of experimental paradigms, have found RB independently of any requirement to overtly report both occurrences of a repeated item (e.g., Kanwisher et al, 1995, Exp.3;Mozer, 1989;Luo and Caramazza, 1995; see also Bjork and Murray, 1977, and Santee and Egeth, 1980.…”

“…3). Similarly, Luo and Caramazza (1995) found RB instead of repetition priming when subjects were asked to report only the second occurrence of the repeated item. Thus, the type-refractoriness hypothesis remains a viable framework in which to explain the RB phenomenon.…”

Repetition blindness and repetition priming: Effects of featural differences between targets and distractors on RSVP dual-target search

“…For example, in Kanwisher's (1987) study, in which there were many distractors, only type activation may have occurred for the first occurrence of the repeated item, and as a result, repetition benefited target report. In Luo and Caramazza's (1995) study, however, there were only two items (the subjects having to report only the second stimulus), and therefore, it is possible that the subjects may have completely tokenized the first item, which would have resulted in a repetition deficit.…”

“…In addition, it has been demonstrated that repetition blindness occurs when memory demands are reduced (Chun, 1997;Dux & Marois, 2007;Luo & Caramazza, 1995 and even when no recall is required (Hochhaus & Johnston, 1996;Johnston et al, 2002). Thus, although retrieval failure contributes to some effects of repetition seen in RSVP streams, it is not responsible for all of them.…”