Psychological Research

, Volume 43, Issue 1, pp 45–56 | Cite as

Inhibition of feature extraction with multiple instances of the target feature in different orientations

  • Garvin Chastain
Article

Summary

Analyses of alphabetic confusion matrices have produced feature lists defined in terms of confusability of characters thought to contain them. Identical shapes of low confusability (e.g., b, d, p, q) therefore share few or no features. Several researchers have observed mutual inhibition of feature extraction with simultaneously presented confusable shapes. Mutual inhibition observed in the current experiments provides a basis for a definition of features in terms of orientation-independent structural relationships. In the first experiment, four alphanumeric characters were each confused with one other character in this same set; however, when another set was formed by reorienting some of these same shapes to become different characters (e.g., 6 to 9), these confusions disappeared. In the second experiment, characters within each set were exposed parafoveally in pairs to different groups of subjects. If members of a pair were similar in shape (disregarding orientation), identification accuracy was poorer than if they were not. Similar shapes in the same orientation were not signficantly more mutually inhibiting than similar shapes in different orientations.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Bjork EL, Murray JT (1977) On the nature of input channels in visual processing. Psychol Rev 84:472–484Google Scholar
  2. Blake J (1976) Parallel processing of position and form information in young children. Percept Psychophys 20:403–407Google Scholar
  3. Bouma H (1971) Visual recognition of isolated lower-case letters. Vis Res 11:459–474Google Scholar
  4. Estes WK (1972) Interactions of signal and background variables in visual processing. Percept Psychophys 12:278–286Google Scholar
  5. Estes WK (1974) Redundancy of noise elements and signals in visual detection of letters. Percept Psychophys 16:53–60Google Scholar
  6. Gibson EJ, Osser H, Schiff W, Smith J (1963) An analysis of critical features of letters, tested by a confusion matrix. In: A basic research program on reading. Cooperative Research Project No. 639, US Office of EducationGoogle Scholar
  7. Kinney GC, Marsetta M, Showman DJ (1966) Studies in display symbol legibility, Part XII. The legibility of symbols for digitalized television. ESD-TR-66-117. The Mitre Corporation, Bedford MassGoogle Scholar
  8. Krumhansl CL, Thomas EAC (1976) Extracting identity and location information from briefly presented letter arrays. Percept Psychophys 20:243–258Google Scholar
  9. Krumhansl CL. Thomas EAC (1977) Effect of level of confusability on reporting letters from briefly presented visual displays. Percept Psychophys 21:269–279Google Scholar
  10. Leitner EF (1978) Independent processing of letter location and identity information. Presented at the Nineteenth Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society in San Antonio, TexasGoogle Scholar
  11. Rumelhart DE (1971) A multicomponent theory of confusion among briefly exposed alphabetic characters. CHIP 22. Center for Human Information Processing, University of California, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
  12. Rumelhart DE, Siple P (1974) Process of recognizing tachistoscopically presented words. Psychol Rev 81:99–118Google Scholar
  13. Santee JL, Egeth HE (1980) Interference in letter identification: A test of feature specific inhibition. Percept Psychophys 27:321–330Google Scholar
  14. Selfridge O (1959) Pandemonium: A paradigm for learning. In: Symposium on the mechanization of thought processes. HMSO, LondonGoogle Scholar
  15. Townsend JT (1971) Theoretical analysis of an alphabetic confusion matrix. Percept Psychophys 9:40–50Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Garvin Chastain
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyBoise State UniversityBoiseUSA

Personalised recommendations