Abstract
In a speeded choice reaction time task, responses to centrally presented letter targets can be altered by the identity of surrounding task-irrelevant letters (flankers). In the standard flanker effect, flankers associated with the same response as the target lead to faster and more accurate responses, whereas flankers associated with a different response lead to slower and more error-prone responses. B. A. Eriksen and C. W. Eriksen (1974, pp. 143–149) have argued that these flanker effects occur through response competition. We present data from a novel version of the Eriksen task, in which some targets and flankers consist of letter forms that aremorphed versions of target letters. In this paradigm, flankers induce classic flanker effects on well-formed targets. But flankers induce an opposite effect, termed anegative flanker effect on morphed letter targets. For example, targets that are morphs between the letters “A” and “H” are more likely to be identified as an “A” when flanked by an “H.” The interpretation advanced here is that there are two distinct kinds of flanker effects: contrast enhancement in perceptual processes and response competition in response selection processes.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Balota, D. A., &Chumbley, J. I. (1984). Are lexical decisions a good measure of lexical access? The role of word frequency in the neglected decision stage.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 340–357.
Bjork, E. L., &Murray, J. T. (1977). On the nature of input channels in visual processing.Psychological Review,84, 472–484.
Cherry, E. E. C. (1953). Some experiments on the recognition of speech, with one and with two ears.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,25, 975–979.
Deutsch, J. A., &Deutsch, D. (1963). Attention: Some theoretical considerations.Psychological Review,70, 80–90.
Driver, J., &Tipper, S. P. (1989). On the nonselectivity of ”selective“ seeing: Contrasts between interference and priming in selective attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,15, 304–314.
Egeth, H. E., &Santee, J. L. (1981). Conceptual and perceptual components of interletter inhibition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,7, 506–517.
Eimer, M. (1998). Facilitatory and inhibitory effects of masked prime stimuli on motor activation and behavioural performance.Acta Psychologica,101, 293–313.
Eriksen, B. A., &Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task.Perception & Psychophysics,16, 143–149.
Eriksen, C. W. (1980). The use of a visual mask may seriously confound your experiment.Perception & Psychophysics,28, 89–92.
Eriksen, C. W., &Eriksen, B. A. (1979). Target redundancy in visual search: Do repetitions of the target within the display impair processing?Perception & Psychophysics,26, 195–205.
Eriksen, C. W., Morris, N., Yeh, Y.-Y., O’Hara, W., &Durst, R. T. (1981). Is recognition accuracy really impaired when the target is repeated in the display?Perception & Psychophysics,30, 375–385.
Estes, W. K. (1972). Interactions of signal and background variables in visual processing.Perception & Psychophysics,12, 278–286.
Estes, W. K. (1974). Redundancy of noise elements and signals in visual detection of letters.Perception & Psychophysics,16, 53–60.
Gratton, G., Coles, M. G. H., Sirevaag, E. J., Eriksen, C. W., &Donchin, E. (1988). Pre- and post-stimulus activation of response channels: A psychophysiological analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,14, 331–344.
Kahneman, D. (1973).Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kanwisher, N. G. (1987). Repetition blindness: Type recognition without token individuation.Cognition,27, 117–143.
Kanwisher, N. G. (1991). Repetition blindness and illusory conjunctions: Errors in binding visual types with visual tokens.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,17, 404–421.
Loftus, G. R., &Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,1, 476–490.
Massaro, D. W. (1988). Some criticisms of connectionist models of human performance.Journal of Memory & Language,27, 213–234.
Massaro, D. W., &Hary, J. M. (1986). Addressing issues in letter recognition.Psychological Research,48, 123–132.
Massaro, D. W., &Oden, G. C. (1979). Integration of featural information in speech perception.Psychological Review,85, 172–191.
Oden, G. C. (1979). A fuzzy logical model of letter identification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,5, 336–352.
Potter, M. C., &Levy, E. I. (1969). Recognition memory for a rapid sequence of pictures.Journal of Experimental Psychology,81, 10–15.
Praamstra, P., Stegeman, D. F., Cools, A. R., &Horstink, M. W. (1998). Reliance on external cues for movement initiation in Parkinson’s disease: Evidence from movement-related potentials.Brain,121, 167–177.
Ratcliff, R., &McKoon, G. (1997). A counter model for implicit priming in perceptual word identification.Psychological Review,104, 319–343.
Ratcliff, R., &Rouder, J. N. (1998). Modeling response times for decisions between two choices.Psychological Science,9, 347–356.
Ratcliff, R., Van Zandt, T., &McKoon, G. (1999). Comparing connectionist and diffusion models of reaction time.Psychological Review,106, 261–300.
Rueckl, J. G., &Oden, G. C. (1986). The integration of contextual and featural information during word identification.Journal of Memory & Language,25, 445–460.
Santee, J. L., &Egeth, H. E. (1980). Interference in letter identification: A test of failure-specif ic inhibition.Perception & Psychophysics,27, 321–330.
Santee, J. L., &Egeth, H. E. (1982a). Do reaction time and accuracy measure the same aspects of letter recognition?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,27, 489–501.
Santee, J. L., &Egeth, H. E. (1982b). Independence versus interference in the perceptual processing of letters.Perception & Psychophysics,31, 101–116.
van der Heijden, A. H. C. (1992).Selective attention in vision. London: Routledge.
Wertheimer, M. (2000). Laws of organization in perceptual forms. In S. Yantis (Ed.),Visual perception: Essential readings (pp. 216–224). Philadelphia: Taylor & Francis.
Yantis, S., &Johnston, J. C. (1990). On the locus of visual selection: Evidence from focused attention tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,16, 135–149.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by National Science Foundation Grant 0096035 and University of Missouri Research Board Grant 00-77 to J.N.R. and by a McDonnell-Pew Cognitive Neuroscience Program grant to J.W.K.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rouder, J.N., King, J.W. Flanker and negative flanker effects in letter identification. Perception & Psychophysics 65, 287–297 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194800
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194800