Cogprints
Login | Create Account

Confusion and Compensation in Visual Perception: Effects of Spatiotemporal Proximity and Selective Attention

Weidemann, Christoph T. and Huber, David E. and Shiffrin, Richard M. (2005) Confusion and Compensation in Visual Perception: Effects of Spatiotemporal Proximity and Selective Attention. [Journal (Paginated)]

Full text available as:

[img]
Preview
PDF
311Kb

Abstract

The authors investigated spatial, temporal, and attentional manipulations in a short-term repetition priming paradigm. Brief primes produced a strong preference to choose the primed alternative, whereas long primes had the opposite effect. However, a 2nd brief presentation of a long prime produced a preference for the primed word despite the long total prime duration. These surprising results are explained by a computational model that posits the offsetting components of source confusion (prime features are confused with target features) and discounting (evidence from primed features is discounted). The authors obtained compelling evidence for these components by showing how they can cooperate or compete through different manipulations of prime salience. The model allows for dissociations between prime salience and the magnitude of priming, thereby providing a unified account of “subliminal” and “supraliminal” priming.

Item Type:Journal (Paginated)
Keywords:perception, short-term priming, priming, attention, selective attention, Bayesian model
Subjects:Psychology > Cognitive Psychology
Psychology > Perceptual Cognitive Psychology
ID Code:4778
Deposited By:Weidemann, Christoph T.
Deposited On:16 Mar 2006
Last Modified:12 Sep 2007 18:02

References in Article

Select the SEEK icon to attempt to find the referenced article. If it does not appear to be in cogprints you will be forwarded to the paracite service. Poorly formated references will probably not work.

Ashby, F. G., Prinzmetal, W., Ivry, R., & Maddox, W. T. (1996). A formal theory of feature binding in object perception. Psychological Review, 103, 165–192.

Bell, M., & Pike, M. C. (1966). Remark on algorithm 178 [E4] direct search. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 9, 684–685.

Cohen, A. L., & Sautner, M. (2001). ExpLib (Version 1.0.1 [beta]) [Computer programming library for Visual C ]. Retrieved from http://people.umass.edu/alc/explib/index.htm

Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428.

Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud. Psychological Review, 108, 204–256.

Correction to Huber et al. (2001). (2001). Psychological Review, 108, 652.

Dijksterhuis, A., Spears, R., Postmes, T., Stapel, D., Koomen, W., van Knippenberg, A., & Scheepers, D. (1998). Seeing one thing and doing another: Contrast effects in automatic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 862–871.

Dill, M., & Edelman, S. (2001). Imperfect invariance to object translation in the discrimination of complex shapes. Perception, 30, 707–724.

Dosher, B. A., & Rosedale, G. (1989). Integrated retrieval cues as a mechanism for priming in retrieval from memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 191–211.

Forster, K. I., & Veres, C. (1998). The prime lexicality effect: Formpriming as a function of prime awareness, lexical status, and discrimination difficulty. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 24, 498–514.

Fox, E. (1995). Negative priming from ignored distractors in visual selection: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 145–173.

Geisser, S., & Greenhouse, S. W. (1958). An extension of Box’s results on the use of the F distribution in multivariate analysis. Annals of Mathematical Statistics, 29, 885–891.

Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A. M. (1996). Orthographic processing in visual word recognition: A multiple read-out model. Psychological Review, 103, 518–565.

Hochhaus, L., & Johnston, J. C. (1996). Perceptual repetition blindness effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 355–366.

Hochhaus, L., & Marohn, K. M. (1991). Repetition blindness depends on perceptual capture and token individuation failure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 422–432.

Hooke, R., & Jeeves, T. A. (1961). “Direct search” solution of numerical and statistical problems. Journal of the Association for Computing Machinery, 8, 212–229.

Huber, D. E. (2005a). Computer simulations of the ROUSE model: An analytic method and a generally applicable technique for producing parameter confidence intervals. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Huber, D. E. (2005b). The time course of perceptual processing for words and faces. Manuscript in preparation.

Huber, D. E., & O’Reilly, R. C. (2003). Persistence and accommodation in short-term priming and other perceptual paradigms: Temporal segregation through synaptic depression. Cognitive Science, 27, 403–430.

Huber, D. E., Shiffrin, R. M., Lyle, K. B., & Quach, R. (2002). Mechanisms of source confusion and discounting in short-term priming 2: Effects of prime similarity and target duration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 28, 1120–1136.

Huber, D. E., Shiffrin, R. M., Lyle, K. B., & Ruys, K. I. (2001). Perception and preference in short-term word priming. Psychological Review, 108, 149–182.

Huber, D. E., Shiffrin, R. M., Quach, R., & Lyle, K. B. (2002). Mechanisms of source confusion and discounting in short-term priming: 1. Effects of prime duration and prime recognition. Memory & Cognition, 30, 745–757.

Humphreys, G. W., Besner, D., & Quinlan, P. T. (1988). Event perception and the word repetition effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 51–67.

Johnson, M. G. (1994). Nonlinear optimization using the algorithm of Hooke and Jeeves [C source code]. Retrieved from http://www.netlib.org/opt/hooke.c

Kanwisher, N. (1987). Repetition blindness: Type recognition without token individuation. Cognition, 27, 117–143.

Kaupe, A. F., Jr. (1963). Algorithm 178: Direct search. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 6, 313–314.

Kucˇera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.

Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476–490.

Macmillan, N. A., & Creelman, C. D. (1991). Detection theory: A user’s guide. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Marcel, A. J. (1983). Conscious and unconscious perception: Experiments on visual masking and word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 15, 197–237.

McNamara, T. P. (1992). Theories of priming: I. Associative distance and lag. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 1173–1190.

Merikle, P. M., & Daneman, M. (1998). Psychological investigations of unconscious perception. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 5, 5–18.

Merikle, P. M., Smilek, D., & Eastwood, J. D. (2001). Perception without awareness: Perspectives from cognitive psychology. Cognition, 79, 115–134.

Meyer, D. E., & Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1976, April 2). Meaning, memory structure, and mental processes. Science, 192, 27–33.

Neill, W. T., & Terry, K. M. (1995). Negative priming without reaction time: Effects on identification of masked letters. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 121–123.

Paap, K. R., Chun, E., & Vonnahme, P. (1999). Discrete threshold versus continuous strength models of perceptual recognition. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53, 277–293.

Paap, K. R., Johansen, L. S., Chun, E., & Vonnahme, P. (2000). Neighborhood frequency does affect performance in the Reicher task: Encoding or decision? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1691–1720.

Park, J., & Kanwisher, N. (1994). Determinants of repetition blindness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 500–519.

Pecher, D., Zeelenberg, R., & Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (1998). Does pizza prime coin? Perceptual priming in lexical decision and pronunciation. Journal of Memory and Language, 38, 401–418.

Plaut, D. C., & Booth, J. R. (2000). Individual and developmental differences in semantic priming: Empirical and computational support for a single-mechanism account of lexical processing. Psychological Review, 107, 786–823.

Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1988). A retrieval theory of priming in memory. Psychological Review, 95, 385–408.

Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (1997). A counter model for implicit priming in perceptual word identification. Psychological Review, 104, 319–343.

Ratcliff, R., & McKoon, G. (2001). A multinomial model for short-term priming in word identification. Psychological Review, 108, 835–846.

Ratcliff, R., McKoon, G., & Verwoerd, M. (1989). A bias interpretation of facilitation in perceptual identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology:

Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 15, 378–387.

Sanborn, A. N., Malmberg, K. J., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2004). High-level effects of masking on perceptual identification. Vision Research, 44, 1427–1436.

Santee, J. L., & Egeth, H. E. (1982). Do reaction time and accuracy measure the same aspects of letter recognition? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 489–501.

Schooler, L. J., Shiffrin, R. M., & Raaijmakers, J. G. W. (2001). A Bayesian model for implicit effects in perceptual identification. Psychological Review, 108, 257–272.

Shiffrin, R. M., & Steyvers, M. (1997). A model for recognition memory: REM—retrieving effectively from memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 145–166.

Shiffrin, R. M., & Steyvers, M. (1998). The effectiveness of retrieval from memory. In M. Oaksford & N. Chater (Eds.), Rational models of cognition (pp. 73–99). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.

Sperling, G., Wurst, S. A., & Lu, Z.-L. (1993). Using repetition detection to define and localize the processes of selective attention. In D. E. Meyer & S. Kornblum (Eds.), Attention and performance XIV: Synergies in experimental psychology, artificial intelligence, and cognitive neuroscience (pp. 265–298). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Stankiewicz, B. J., & Hummel, J. E. (2002). Automatic priming for translation- and scale-invariant representations of object shape. Visual Cognition, 9, 719–739.

Tipper, S. P. (2001). Does negative priming reflect inhibitory mechanisms? A review and integration of conflicting views. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 54(A), 321–343.

Tomlin, F. K., & Smith, L. B. (1969). Remark on algorithm 178 [E4]: Direct search. Communications of the Association for Computing Machinery, 12, 637–638.

Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.

Treisman, A. M., & Gormican, S. (1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological Review, 95, 15– 48.

Wellman, M. P., & Henrion, M. (1993). Explaining “explaining away.” IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 15, 287–307.

Metadata

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Cogprints is powered by EPrints 3 which is developed by the School of Electronics and Computer Science at the University of Southampton. More information and software credits.