State and process limitations in information processing: An additive factors analysis.

Shwartz, Steven P.; Pomerantz, James R.; Egeth, Howard E.

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.3.3.402

Cited by 62 publications

(56 citation statements)

References 9 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Miller and Bauer (1981) found that reducing the contrast of visually presented letters significantly slowed stimulus identification time in a fixed-set memory search task. Similar effects of visual quality on visual search and stimulus identificationhave been observed elsewhere (e.g., Johnsen & Briggs, 1973;Pashler & Badgio, 1985;Schwartz, Pomerantz, & Egeth, 1977). Loftus (1985) presented evidence that the rate with which information is extracted from visual displays is directly influenced by the contrast of the display (the lower the contrast, the lower the information-extraction rate; see Sperling, 1986, for a quantitative model).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 60%

Mechanisms of attentional selection: Temporally modulated priority tags

Yantis

Jones

1991

Perception & Psychophysics

126

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When a single abrupt onset appears in a multielement display, it captures attention. When multiple onset elements occur, they have conditional priority over no-onset elements such that a limited number of onsets can be serviced with high priority in visual search (Yantis & Johnson, 1990). We report three experiments in which we assess two possible mechanisms for attentional prioritization: a priority queue into which a fixed number of high-priority elements are placed for early servicing during search, and a mechanism that temporarily tags all high-priority elements for early servicing or more frequent sampling. We manipulated the visual quality or interletter confusability ofthe stimuli to prolong encoding and/or comparison operations; this manipulation led to a decrease in the estimated number of elements serviced with high priority. We conclude that a mechanism incorporating temporally decaying priority tags is implicated in servicing multiple abrupt onsets in visual search.The complexity of visual perception requires an efficient selection mechanism that constrains the current visual task so that it is momentarily tractable (Tsotsos, 1988). Selective attention sets priorities that are used for a variety of visual tasks, including efficient visual search. For example, the guided search model of Cave and Wolfe (1990) suggests that an activation value is computed for each element in a visual display according to its similarity to the target on several dimensions and its conspicuity in the display (i.e., its dissimilarity to nontarget elements). Elements are then processed serially in order of their activation strengths. Similar models have been advanced by others (e.g., Bundesen, 1990;Duncan & Humphreys, 1989;Koch & Ullman, 1985).These models all include some kind of prioritizing system in which preliminary decisions are made about which stimuli will be processed first (in serial models) or sampled more frequently (in parallel models). In most cases, a distinction is made between bottom-up or stimulusdriven selection, and top-down or goal-directed selection. In the present article, we describe three experiments in which we investigated one aspect of attentional prioritization via stimulus-driven attentional interrupts generated by abrupt visual onsets.This research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant ROI-MH43924 to Steven Yantis. We are grateful to Vibha Thakral and Elizabeth Graham for excellent technical assistance, and to Howard Egeth, Doug Johnson, Jim Johnston, and Toby Mordkoff for valuable suggestions concerning the research. Our thanks to Lester Krueger, John Palmer, and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of the article. Correspondence should be sent to Steven Yantis, Department of Psychology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218 (e-mail: yantis@jhuvms). Abrupt Onsets and AttentionSeveral lines of research have provided empirical evidence for attentional capture by abrupt onsets.' For example, Todd and Van Gelder (1979) developed the no...

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 60%

Mechanisms of attentional selection: Temporally modulated priority tags

Yantis

Jones

1991

Perception & Psychophysics

126

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In many RT procedures, stimulus Hquality"-amount of contrast or visual noise for visual stimuli, amount of background noise for auditory stimuli-is usually additive with other factors. It is additive with list length (Bracey, 1969;Hardzinski & Pachella, 1980;Sternberg, 1967;Tharp, Rundell, Lester, & Williams, 1974;and Ford & Banks, 1977, where the quality factor was handwritten versus typed; see Hardzinski & Pachella, 1980, for an exception), visual-array size (Logan, 1978), stimulus-response compatibility (Biederman & Kaplan, 1970;Blackman, 1975;Frowein & Sanders, 1978;Shwartz, Pomerantz, & Egeth, 1977;Sternberg, 1969a), pattern goodness (Checkosky & Whitlock, 1973), foreperiod length (Bernstein, Chu, & Briggs, 1973), stimulus similarity (Shwartz et al, 1977), an irrelevant auditory cue (Acosta & Simon, 1976), stimulus probability (Miller & Pachella, 1973;Pachella & Miller, 1976;Stanovich & Pachella, 1977;see Stanovich & Pachella, 1977, for some exceptions); stimulus contrast (Sanders, 1980); and word frequency (Stanners, Jastrzembski, & Westbrook, 1975;Landauer, Didner, & Fowlkes, 1975). These findings suggest the existence of a process changed by stimulus quality and not by many other factors, often called an encoding stage.…”

Section: Stated That Variables Influencing the Duration Of A Process mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence for distinct serial processes in animals: The multiplicative-factors method

Roberts

1987

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The assumption that responses are controlled by distinct serially arranged processes was used by Sternberg (1969a) to explain the result, observed in many human experiments, that two factors have additive effects on reaction time (RT). With slight changes, Sternberg's explanation of additive factors with RT also explains the result, observed in animal experiments, that two factors have multiplicative effects on response rate. This article describes and interprets 17 examples of multiplicative factors from response-rate experiments with rats, pigeons, and goldfish, as well as some other animal evidence for distinct serial processes. The examples suggest and/or support new and old ideas about generalization, attention, timing, learning, motivation, and response production. Most important, the animal evidence makes the case for distinct serial processes considerably stronger. Since the procedures used in the two sets of experiments (human and animal) have little in common, distinct serial processes may control behavior in a very wide range of situations.Sternberg (l969a) introduced the additive-factor method (AFM), a guide to designing and interpreting reaction time (RT) experiments, and used the method to show that there was evidence for distinct serially arranged processes (which Sternberg called processing stages) in a number of human RT experiments. The data that he used to illustrate the method are unusual. They come from factorial RT experiments, and the key result, found in a number of experiments, was that pairs of factors (treatments) had close-to-additive effects on mean RT. One unusual feature of the data is the precision of the additivity. In most cases, an additive model fit so well that in graphs of the data, all of the points (representing the data) touched the fitted lines (representing the model). In a few cases, it was not obvious that the lines had not been drawn through the points. Ten of Sternberg's examples provided enough data to calculate the percentage of variance explained by an additive model; on the average (median over the 10 cases), an additive model describes 99.89% of the variance. In one set of experiments, not done with the method in mind, an additive model described RTs with median absolute error of 1.8 msec (median taken over five pairs of factors). In an experiment designed for the method, the errors were .9 msec (one pair offactors) and.4 msec (same pair at a different level of a third factor), with RTs on the order of 500 msec. Sternberg (1971) described 9

show abstract

“…"Stimulus similarity" refers to the similarity between alternative stimuli. For example Shwartz et al (1977) varied the slope of the upright lines in .14 the capital letters A and H. The three "perceptual" variables appear to have additive effects on choice reaction time so it can be concluded that at least three perceptual stages are involved. There can only be some speculation regarding the nature of these stages.…”

Section: Processing Stagesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Standardization of Performance Tests: A Proposal for Further Steps.

Sanders¹,

Haygood²,

Schroiff³

et al. 1986

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

UNCLASSIFIEDApproved for public release; distribution unlimited. • This report summarizes the results of Phase I of a study on the fea jbility .-V.and development of a standardized task battery for measiiement of human performance. Phase I includes literature reviews on task batteries, interviews with experts in the field of human performance and analytic studies of the theoretical background of existing and possible task batteries. Recormendations for a further task battery are given.

show abstract

State and process limitations in information processing: An additive factors analysis.

Cited by 62 publications

References 9 publications

Mechanisms of attentional selection: Temporally modulated priority tags

Mechanisms of attentional selection: Temporally modulated priority tags

Evidence for distinct serial processes in animals: The multiplicative-factors method

Standardization of Performance Tests: A Proposal for Further Steps.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About