The role of attention and familiarity in face identification

Jackson, Mike; Raymond, Jane E.

doi:10.3758/bf03208757

Cited by 83 publications

(98 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is somewhat surprising given the ; Jackson & Raymond, 2006;Shapiro, Caldwell, & Sorenson, 1997). As mentioned earlier, the skeletal AB task presents a straightforward test of the temporal resolution of the sustained use of limited capacity resources once target processing has been initiated.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, targets with a degree of learnt salience, such as one's own name (Shapiro, Caldwell, & Sorenson, 1997), a famous face (Jackson & Raymond, 2006), or an emotionally salient word (Anderson, 2005;Anderson & Phelps, 2001) show a reduced impairment relative to more neutral stimuli. Similarly, when a stimulus that has been previously paired with an unpleasant outcome is used as a distractor in an RSVP task, it can automatically generate an impairment for subsequent targets, similar to that observed in the AB (Smith, Most, Newsome, & Zald, 2006).…”

Section: Timementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Automaticity and cognitive control in the learned predictiveness effect.

Shone¹,

Harris²,

Livesey³

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In novel contexts, learning is biased toward cues previously experienced as predictive compared with cues previously experienced as nonpredictive. This is known as learned predictiveness. A recent finding has shown that instructions issued about the causal status of cues influences the expression of learned predictiveness, suggesting that controlled, volitional processes play a role in this effect. Three experiments are reported further investigating the effects of instructional manipulations on learned predictiveness. Experiment 1 confirms the influence of inferential processes, extending previous work to suggest that instructions affect associative memory as well as causal reasoning. Experiments 2 and 3 used a procedure designed to tease apart inferential and automatic contributions to the bias by presenting instructed causes that were previously predictive and previously nonpredictive. The results demonstrate that the prior predictiveness of cues influences subsequent learning over and above the effect of explicit instruction. However, it appears that the relationship between explicit instruction and predictive history is interactive rather than additive. Potential explanations for this interactivity are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Timementioning

confidence: 99%

Automaticity and cognitive control in the learned predictiveness effect.

Shone¹,

Harris²,

Livesey³

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For instance, familiar or meaningful stimuli, such as one's own name (Shapiro, Caldwell, & Sorensen, 1997) or famous faces (Jackson & Raymond, 2006) are protected to some degree from the AB as their identification is less impaired than similar but less familiar stimuli. Smith, Most, Newsome, and Zald (2006) also showed that a stimulus recently associated with an aversive burst of white noise can automatically induce an AB-like impairment when used as a distractor in an RSVP task.…”

Section: The Attentional Blinkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attentional changes during implicit learning: Signal validity protects a target stimulus from the attentional blink.

Livesey¹,

Harris²,

Harris³

2009

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Participants in two experiments performed two simultaneous tasks: one, a dual-target detection task within a rapid sequence of target and distractor letters; the other, a cued reaction time task requiring participants to make a cued left/right response immediately after each letter sequence. Under these rapid visual presentation conditions, it is usually difficult to identify the second target when it is presented in close temporal proximity of the first target, a phenomenon known as the attentional blink. However, here, participants showed an advantage for detecting a target presented during the attentional blink if that target predicted which response cue would appear at the end of the trial. Participants also showed faster reaction times on trials with a predictive target. Both of these effects were independent of conscious knowledge of the target-response contingencies assessed by post-experiment questionnaires. The results suggest that implicit learning of the association between a predictive target and its outcome can automatically facilitate target recognition during the attentional blink, and therefore shed new light on the relationship between associative learning and attentional mechanisms.

show abstract

“…Bruce concluded that facial identification and other perceptual assessments of faces can occur in parallel. Finally, using the AB paradigm, Awh et al (2004) observed a result opposite to that of Jackson and Raymond (2006)-no AB effect from unfamiliar T2 faceseven when the same T1 task (digit discrimination) produced an AB effect on a letter discrimination T2 task. The absence of an AB effect for unfamiliar T2 faces suggests that facial identification does not require the specific attentional resources required to perceive and encode T1.…”

mentioning

confidence: 92%

“…This result suggests that, with divided attention, facial identification is incomplete. Similarly, Jackson and Raymond (2006) used the attentional blink (AB) paradigm 2 to investigate the interaction between attention and facial identification. They found an AB effect when the faces (T2) were unfamiliar to participants, but not when the faces were familiar.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%