Using visual codes for comparisons of pictures

Abstract

In two experiments, Ss indicated for a series of trials whether or not two pictures of common objects had the same name (a positive or negative response, respectively). The pictures were separated by one of three interstimulus intervals (ISIs), and reaction time (RT) was recorded. In Experiment I, positive trials involved pictures that were identical (identity match), mirror images (mirror match), or physically different but had the same name (name match). The stimuli came from either an 8 set, in which name-match pairs were physically similar, or a D set, in which name-match pairs were physically dissimilar. The mean RTs for mirror and identity matches were virtually the same but faster than name-match RTs, an advantage that decreased with increasing 181. It was expected that name-match RT for the 8 set would be less than for the D set, indicating a facilitative effect of physical similarity; however, the identity-match RTs showed the expected difference. These results were extended in Experiment II, which involved only the identity and name matches, in pure sessions (which included positive trials of just one type) or mixed sessions (which included both types of positive trials). For mixed sessions, name-as well as identity-match RTs differed between the 8 and D sets. These results provide evidence for the use of visual codes in comparing nonidentical pictures, codes that apparently vary with experimental context and task demands.

Levels of coding in picture-picture comparison tasks

“…The two experiments reported below attempt to clarify and extend some of the findings reported by Bartram (1974) and Klatzky and Stoy (1974), as well as provide more data on the general question of what coding levels are involved in picture comparisons. Experiment I examines four matching conditions involving pairs of identical pictures (Condition Ps), pairs of different views of the same object (Condition Pv), and pairs of different objects having the same name seen from either the same viewpoint (Condition Pds) or different viewpoints (Condition Pdv).…”

“…Previous studies on picture-picture matching have tended to use stylized drawings of common objects as stimuli (Frost, 1972;Klatzky, 1972;Klatzky & Stoy, 1974). Wingfield (1968), however, examined the effect of varying name frequency on matching pairs of drawings of objects (identity match) and matching drawings and names.…”

“…The fact that Klatzky and Stoy (1974) did not obtain an effect of stimulus similarity on name matching in their first experiment, but did in their second, may be accounted for by arguing that the mirror-image match condition in their first experiment somehow interfered with the process of generating abstract visual images. Hence, it might be expected that a situation where both Ps and Pv matches occur may be analogous to Klatzky and Stoy's (1974) Subjects.…”

“…Hence, it might be expected that a situation where both Ps and Pv matches occur may be analogous to Klatzky and Stoy's (1974) Subjects. Eight subjects, six undergraduates and two postgraduates, took part and were tested in individual 40-min sessions.…”

“…Their second experiment (Klatzky & Stoy, 1974) compared the two sets of stimuli in "pure" conditions (all identity matches or all name matches) and in a "mixed" condition (in which both types of match occurred). This experiment showed that a difference between the two sets of stimuli (S vs. D) only occurs in the "mixed" condition.…”