Stimulus repetition effects on attention to words and colors.

Kraut, Alan G.; Smothergill, Daniel W.; Farkas, Mitchell S.

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.7.6.1303

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, in accord with their two-factor theory, this effect was reversed when the interval between the prefamiliarization and test trials was increased from 0 to 30 min, allowing the inhibitory factor to dissipate and the opposing facilitatory factor to dominate. In a follow-up study, Kraut, Smothergill, and Farkas (1981) observed comparable effects with word stimuli. Pre familiarization retarded reaction time to words under conditions designed to more heavily weight the inhibitory factor but enhanced reaction time under conditions designed to more heavily weight the facilitatory factor.…”

Section: Perceptual Inhibition Of Expected Inputsmentioning

confidence: 71%

Perceptual inhibition of expected inputs: The key that opens closed minds

Johnston

Hawley

1994

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

139

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The mind appears to be biased simultaneously toward both expected and unexpected inputs. For example, familiar scenes are usually perceived more readily than novel scenes, indicating the former bias, but a single novel object sometimes pops out from a familiar field, indicating the latter bias. A diverse literature and a computational model converge on the following resolution to this paradox: The former bias is conceptually driven and actually suppresses data-driven processing of expected inputs; in turn, this suppression disinhibits data-driven processing of unexpected inputs, yielding the latter bias. Evidence for suppressed data-driven processing of expected inputs is drawn from studies of perceptual habituation, semantic satiation, memory inhibition, inhibition of return, repetition blindness, primed inhibition, the word-inferiority effect, registration without learning, and both expert-and schema-based inhibitory effects. Evidence for enhanced data-driven processing of unexpected inputs is drawn from studies of the orienting response, mismatch negativity, memory facilitation, both expert-and schema-based facilitatory effects, and perceptual popout. The model, called mismatch theory, incorporates inhibitory and facilitatory perceptual dynamics and is found to simulate the opposing biases. Implications of mismatch theory for perceptual phenomenology, dynamic systems theory, mental health, and individual differences are also discussed.In a review of some of her research on perception and memory, Treisman (1992) concluded that by creating accumulated traces of past perceptual objects or events, the world molds our minds to recreate earlier experiences. At the same time, we retain an impressive capacity also to represent any new object that fails to find its match in our prior assembly of stored tokens. (p. 874) This observation echoes what Grossberg (1987) calls the stability-plasticity dilemma. How can the mind be molded to familiar environments and still remain vigilant for change? We suggest that the'opposing biases toward both what is most expected and what is least expected are among the most adaptive and revealing features of the mind. Part 1 of this paper presents a paradigmatic example of opposing mental biases in the form of our own prior work on novel popout. Part 2 outlines in general terms a possible explanation of novel popout and resolution of the stability-plasticity dilemma, called mismatch theory. Part 3 draws together diverse lines of empirical support for the key assumptions of mismatch theory. Part 4 de-

show abstract

Section: Perceptual Inhibition Of Expected Inputsmentioning

confidence: 71%

Perceptual inhibition of expected inputs: The key that opens closed minds

Johnston

Hawley

1994

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

139

137

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One last possibility to consider is that in younger adults, repeated exposure to the same irrelevant stimulus (such as a word or a color) typically results in slower responses to the familiarized stimulus than to a comparable novel stimulus because of a habituation of brain responses to those stimuli (Fabiani, Low, Wee, Sable, & Gratton, 2006) and decreased alertness (Cecil, Kraut, & Smothergill, 1984;Kraut, Smothergill, & Farkas, 1981). However, the fact that responses to familiarized go (previous nogo) stimuli became faster from the first to the second block of the second task in the younger group rules out an alertness decrease account for repeated stimuli to explain the current pattern of results.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Age-related differences in transfer costs: Evidence from go/nogo tasks.

Vallesi¹,

Hasher²,

Stuss³

2010

Psychology and Aging

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To assess whether age-related differences in suppressing nontarget material impact subsequent performance, the authors initially asked younger and older adults to perform a go/nogo task with colored letters used as conflicting go/nogo stimuli and 2 colored numbers as low-conflict nogo stimuli. Next, participants performed another go/nogo task. A previous number was reused as a nogo stimulus and the other as a go stimulus, with new numbers serving as a baseline. In a 1st block of trials, younger adults showed slower responses to previous nogo/now-go numbers than to new go numbers, an effect not shown by older adults. Alternative accounts of these differential transfer costs are discussed.

show abstract

“…For example, in the case of the word stimulus, the facilitation of its encoding was brought about more strongly than the reduction of its alertness, the result of which was a decrease in RT. On the contrary, in the case of the color stimulus, the reduction of its alertness was more larger than the facilitation of its encoding, and in which case the RT increased (Kraut et al, 1981). Accordingly, it can be argued that the above mentioned " stimulus repetition effect " occurs even in the case of irrelevant stimulus in this experiment.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 46%

“…How can this result be explained ? Kraut, Smothergill, and Farkass (1981) reported that the stimulus presented repeatedly changed their alertness " and encodability" which were known as two of the three factors of attention (Posner & Bois, 1971), and that responses to these stimuli were influenced by these factors. In general, they claimed that repetitive presentation of a stimulus reduced its alertness (to increase the RT) and facilitated its encoding (to decrease the RT), and the relative strength of these changes might increase or decrease the RT to the stimulus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effect of familiarity and autoprocessing of irrelevant stimulus on the processing of relevant stimuli

Ishiguchi

1986

Jpn. Psychol. Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of familiarity of the irrelevant stimulus on the processing of the relevant stimuli was examined. The task in Exp. I was of odd-even matching between two digits (relevant stimuli), which was considered as a high level processing, and that in Exp. 2 was of physical matching, which was considered as a low level processing task. In both experiments, one Chinese character (irrelevant stimulus) was presented at the center between two digits in each test trials. In the high familiarity condition (SO), the irrelevant stimuli were presented repeatedly in a memorization session, while in the low familiarity condition (SN), they were merely presented before the actual task. The results were that when the task required a low level processing (Exp. 2), die irrelevant stimulus, both in the high familiarity condition (SO) and in the low familiarity condition (SN), had the inhibitory effect upon the encoding of the relevant stimuli, but in the task which required a high level processing (Exp. I) the irrelevant stimulus with high familiarity (SO) had the effect of indirect fadlitation. Interaction between the effect of familiarity and the level of processing was discussed.

show abstract

Stimulus repetition effects on attention to words and colors.

Cited by 14 publications

References 13 publications

Perceptual inhibition of expected inputs: The key that opens closed minds

Perceptual inhibition of expected inputs: The key that opens closed minds

Age-related differences in transfer costs: Evidence from go/nogo tasks.

Effect of familiarity and autoprocessing of irrelevant stimulus on the processing of relevant stimuli

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About