Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 207–222 | Cite as

Discrimination and matching within and between hues measured by reaction times: some implications for categorical perception and levels of information processing

  • M. H. Bornstein
  • N. O. Korda
Article

Summary

Same-different reaction times (RTs) were obtained for pairs of color samples ranging perceptually from blue to green. In Experiment 1, observers responded with “same” if both stimuli in a pair were from the same hue category (i.e., blue-blue or green-green) or “different” if the two stimuli were from different hue categories (i.e., blue-green or green-blue). RT for “same” responses was faster for pairs of physically identical stimuli (A-A) than for pairs of physically different stimuli (A-a) belonging to the same hue. RT for “different” responses was faster for larger physical differences across a boundary between hues (A-B 6 step) than for smaller physical differences (A-B 2 step). Experiment 2 replicated and extended these findings: In one phase observers matched pairs of stimuli as “same” or “different” by categorical similarity as in Experiment 1, and in a second phase observers matched the same stimulus pairs, this time by physical similarity. Matching by categorical similarity replicated the pattern of results found in Experiment 1. Matching by physical similarity showed that RTs for “different” responses were equivalently fast independent of the physical difference between A-B pairs, but were faster for A-B than for A-a comparisons. Further, matching identity was faster under categorical match instructions than under physical match instructions. Results of the two experiments support a model of parallel processing of physical and categorical stimulus information in color perception. Further, these reaction-time data and their implications in color perception (for hues) parallel reaction-time data and their implications in speech perception (for phonemes).

Keywords

Parallel Processing Physical Difference Speech Perception Stimulus Pair Categorical Perception 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Beare, A.C. (1963). Color-name as a function of wave-length. American Journal of Psychology, 76, 248–256.Google Scholar
  2. Bornstein, M.H. (1979). Perceptual development: Stability and change in feature perception. In: Bornstein M.H., Kessen W. (Eds.), Psychological Development from Infancy. Hillsdale, NJ: ErlbaumGoogle Scholar
  3. Bornstein, M.H., & Korda, N.O. (1984). Some psychological parallels between categorization processes in vision and in audition. In: Harnad, S. (Ed.), Categorical Perception. New York: Cambridge University PressGoogle Scholar
  4. Bornstein, M.H., & Monroe, M.D. (1980). Chromatic information processing: Rate depends on stimulus location in the category and psychological complexity. Psychological Research, 42, 213–225.Google Scholar
  5. Boynton, R.M. (1979). Human Color Vision. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & WinstonGoogle Scholar
  6. Boynton, R.M., & Gordon, J. (1965). Bezold-Brücke hue shift measured by color-naming technique. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 55, 78–86.Google Scholar
  7. Graham, C.H. (1965). Discriminations that depend on wavelength. In: Graham, C.H. (Ed.), Vision and Visual Perception. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  8. Hanson, V.L. (1977). Within-category discriminations in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 21, 423–430.Google Scholar
  9. Howell, P., & Darwin, C.J. (1977). Some properties of auditory memory for rapid formant transitions. Memory & Cognition, 5, 700–708.Google Scholar
  10. Ishihara, S. (1968). Test for Colour-Blindness. Tokyo: ShuppanGoogle Scholar
  11. Pisoni, D.B., & Tash, J. (1974). Reaction times to comparisons within and across phonetic categories. Perception & Psychophysics, 15, 285–290.Google Scholar
  12. Posner, M.I. (1969). Abstraction and the process of recognition. In: Bower, G.H., Spence, J.T. (Eds.), The Psychology of Learning and Motivation (Vol. 3). New York: Academic PressGoogle Scholar
  13. Posner, M.I., & Mitchell, R.F. (1967). Chronometric analysis of classification. Psychological Review, 71, 392–409.Google Scholar
  14. Raskin, L.A., Maital, S., & Bornstein, M.H. (1983). Perceptual categorization of color: A life-span study. Psychological Research, 45, 135–145.Google Scholar
  15. Studdert-Kennedy, M., Liberman, A.M., & Stevens, K.N. (1963). Reaction time to synthetic stop consonants and vowels at phoneme centers and at phoneme boundaries. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 25, 1900.Google Scholar
  16. Wood, C.C. (1974). Parallel processing of auditory and phonetic information in speech perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 15, 501–508.Google Scholar
  17. Wright, A.A. (1972). Psychometric and psychophysical hue discrimination functions for the pigeon. Vision Research, 12, 1447–1464.Google Scholar
  18. Wright, W.D. (1947). Researches on Normal and Defective Color Vision. St. Louis, MO: CV MosbyGoogle Scholar
  19. Zadeh, L.A. (1965). Fuzzy sets. Information & Control, 8, 338–353.Google Scholar
  20. Zimmer, A.C. (1982). What really is turquoise? A note on the evolution of color terms. Psychological Research, 44, 213–230.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. H. Bornstein
    • 1
  • N. O. Korda
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNew York UniversityNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Wells, Rich, Greene, Inc.USA

Personalised recommendations