The effect of flanking context on visual classification: The joint contribution of interactions at different processing levels

Flowers, John H.; Wilcox, Noreen

doi:10.3758/bf03204214

Cited by 101 publications

(143 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

121

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A possible explanation for this RT facilitation is an alerting or first signal effect that has been a finding in comparable experimental arrangements (see C. W. . However, since the effect is mainly obtained with the compatible noise, the effect is most comparable to the results of Flowers and Wilcox (1982). Like other investigators, Flowers and Wilcox found little or no effect of compatible noise when targets and noise were presented simultaneously, but when the compatible noise onset preceded the target by SOAs of 50 or 67 msec, compatible noise facilitated choice RTs.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 47%

“…In keeping with the spotlight metaphor, the results obtained with single-target stimuli (e.g., Andersen, 1990; C. W. Eriksen & Hoffman, 1974;Flowers & Wilcox, 1982;Miller, 1991) have suggested that the attentional field is essentially circular, since the interference effect of response-incompatible stimuli has been found to be a function of their distance from the target irrespective of the direction. The present results show quite clearly that circularity is not an inherent characteristic of the attentional field.…”

Section: Attentional Distribution 141mentioning

confidence: 80%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Attentional distribution in the visual field duringsame-different judgments as assessed by response competition

Kai-Yu

Eriksen

1993

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 47%

Section: Attentional Distribution 141mentioning

confidence: 80%

Attentional distribution in the visual field duringsame-different judgments as assessed by response competition

Kai-Yu

Eriksen

1993

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Both of these effects are observed in the literature: Many investigators report a diminution in the flanker effect as distance increases (Andersen, 1990;Eriksen & Hoffman, 1972Flowers & Wilcox, 1982;Kramer & Jacobson, 1991 ). Those same studies found faster reaction times with greater targetflanker distances, though most investigators did not comment on that effect.…”

Section: Methods and Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The CODE theory of visual attention: An integration of space-based and object-based attention.

Logan

1996

Psychological Review

279

344

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article presents a theory that inte~ates space-based and object-based approaches to visual attention. The theory puts together M. P. van Oeffelen and P. G. Vos's ( 1982Vos's ( , 1983) COntour DEtector (CODE) theory of perceptual grouping by proximity with C. Bundesen's (1990) theory of visual attention (TVA). CODE provides input to TVA, accounting for spatially based between-object selection, and TVA converts the input to output, accounting for feature-and category-based withinobject selection. CODE clusters nearby items into perceptual groups that are both perceptual objects and regions of space, thereby integrating object-based and space-based approaches to attention. The combined theory provides a quantitative account of the effects of grouping by proximity and dis~nce between items on reaction time and accuracy data in 7 empirical situations that shaped the current literature on visual spatial attention.For the last decade the attention literature has been embroiled in a debate over the nature of visual spatial attention that focuses on the "thing" that attention selects (e.g., Baylis & Driver, 1993;Driver & Baylis, 1989;Duncan, 1984;Egly, Driver, & Rafal, 1994;Kramer & Jacobson, 1991;Vecera & Farah, 1994). Advocates of space-based attention argue that attention selects regions of space independent of the objects they contain. Attention is like a spotlight illuminating a region of space. Objects that fall within the beam are processed; objects that fall outside it are not (Eriksen & Eriksen, 1974;Eriksen & St. James, 1986;Posner, 1980;Posner & Cohen, 1984;Treisman & Gelade, 1980;Treisman & Gormican, 1988). Advocates of object-based attention argue that attention selects objects rather than regions of space. Selection is spatial because objects necessarily occupy regions of space, but objects rather than the regions themselves are the things that are selected (Kahneman & Henik, 1981;Kahneman & Treisman, 1984;Kahneman, Treisman, & Gibbs, 1992;Pylyshyn & Storm, 1988). Objectbased theories assume that attention only selects regions of space that are occupied by objects, whereas space-based theories assume that attention can select empty regions of space (cf. Yantis, 1992).The purpose of this article is to propose a theory of visual spatial attention that integrates space-based and object-based views. The theory takes a computational approach to the problem, characterizing attention in terms of representations and the processes that operate on them. It differs from most ap- proaches to attention by being concerned with the representation of space and the representation of objects, incorporating a theory of perceptual organization and a theory of selection. The resolution of the controversy derives from the theory's assumptions about representation.The article begins by describing five important questions that face any theory of visual spatial attention. The answers proposed by the new theory are presented by way of describing the theory. The theory is applied to seven important paradigms that shaped the cur...

show abstract

“…However, given the findings that (I) this effect is easily obtained in tasks in which name retrieval is probably less problematic (as in the word-or letter-reading tasks of Flowers, 1980;Flowers & Wilcox, 1982;La Heij et al, 1985;and La Heij & Venneij, 1987), and (2) the effects of response set membership and semantic similarity in our present experiments are additive, it is conceivable that response set membership affects such later processing stages as the choice between two available responses or the execution of one of the responses (see Coles, Gratton, Bashore, Eriksen, & Donchin, 1985;and C. W. Eriksen, Coles, Morris, & O'Hara, 1985).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Components of Stroop-like interference in picture naming

1988

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The semantic interference effect observed in Stroop tasks and picture-word interference tasks might be due to the previous confounding of semantic similarity with task relevance (in the Stroop task) and with perceptual similarity (in the picture-word interference task). A picture-word variant ofthe Stroop task was devised in which the factors of task relevance and perceptual similarity were controlled. The distractor conditions allowed for the examination of four types of context effects. The results show that the overall Stroop-like interference effect can be decomposed into interference effects due to (1) a semantic relation between distractor and target, (2) the semantic relevance of the distractor word in the task at hand, (3) the presence of the distractor word in the response set, and (4) the mere presence of a word. Implications of these findings for the locus or loci of Stroop and picture-word interference effects are discussed. It is concluded that distractor words in Stroop-like naming tasks interfere mainly in the process of name retrieval.In the Stroop task, subjects are required to name colors that are part of, or accompanied by, a printed word (see, e.g., Glaser & Glaser, 1982;Stroop, 1935); in the picture-word interference task, subjects are required to name pictures that are accompanied by a printed word (see, e.g., Rosinski, Golinkoff, & Kukish, 1975;Underwood, 1976). In the Stroop task (see, e.g., Fox, Shor, & Steinman, 1971;Klein, 1964), and in the picture-word interference task (see, e.g., Glaser & Diingelhoff, 1984;Guttentag & Haith, 1978;Lupker, 1979;Rosinski, 1977), a distractor word that is semantically related to the target seems to induce more interference than a distractor word that is unrelated to the target. This semantic interference effect stands in marked contrast to the semantic facilitation effect observed in tasks in which subjects are required to read a target word that is preceded by, or presented simultaneously with, a prime word (e.g., Dallas & Merikle, 1976; La Heij, Van der Heijden, & Schreuder, 1985;Warren, 1977).A conclusion that could be drawn from these results is that a semantic relation between a distractor word (or prime word) and a target will hamper performance in tasks in which nonverbal targets have to be named (as in the Stroop task and the picture-word interference task) but will facilitate perfonnance in tasks in which verbal targets have to be read (as in the word-reading variant of the semantic priming task). Before accepting such a conclusion, it would seem worthwhile to determine whether the discrepancy can be attributed to other characteristics of the various tasks.Further inspection of the Stroop task and the pictureword interference task reveals that in both of these tasks the semantic relatedness factor is confounded with another Requests for reprints should be sent to W. La Heij, Department of Psychology, Unit of Experimental Psychology, University of Leiden, Hooigracht 15,2312 KM Leiden, The Netherlands. factor that might be responsible for the int...

show abstract

The effect of flanking context on visual classification: The joint contribution of interactions at different processing levels

Abstract: Inhibition-related activation in the right inferior frontal gyrus in the absence of inhibitory cues.

Cited by 101 publications

References 20 publications

Attentional distribution in the visual field duringsame-different judgments as assessed by response competition

Attentional distribution in the visual field duringsame-different judgments as assessed by response competition

The CODE theory of visual attention: An integration of space-based and object-based attention.

Components of Stroop-like interference in picture naming

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About