Psychological Research

, Volume 52, Issue 1, pp 13–21 | Cite as

Time courses in visual-information processing: Some empirical evidence for inhibition

  • M. P. Hagenzieker
  • A. H. C. van der Heijden
  • R. Hagenaar


In the literature two different views on the time course of activation of “recognition units” — hypothetical units that represent identity information — are proposed. The first view assumes that the recognition units accumulate activation gradually over time. The second assumes that the activation levels increase fast initially and then start to decrease. Hagenzieker and Van der Heijden (1990) have proposed a more general information-processing model, which is compatible with both views. In this model a treshold determines what type of time course will be obtained. For below-threshold-activation values a gradual accumulation of activation will be found; for above-threshold values activation levels will first increase and then, because of inhibition, decrease. This model served as a starting-point for the present paper. Elaboration of this model led to two testable hypotheses with regard to identification performance. The first prediction is that evidence for inhibition should be observed only under relatively bright luminance conditions. The second is that, given inhibition, the amount of the effect of this inhibition should increase over time. A partial-report bar-probe task was used to test the predictions. The experiment involved two luminance conditions and the information was sampled at two different moments in time. To control for possible localization artefacts a digit-naming task was also used. Evidence for inhibition was found in both luminance conditions. In accordance with the model the amount of the effect of inhibition increased over time.


Empirical Evidence Testable Hypothesis Identification Performance Identity Information Gradual Accumulation 
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.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Averbach, E., & Coriell, A. S. (1961). Short-term memory in vision.Bell System Technical Journal, 40, 309–328.Google Scholar
  2. Bouma, H. (1970). Interaction effects in parafoveal letter recognition.Nature, 226, 177–178.Google Scholar
  3. Broca, A., & Sulzer, D. (1902). La sensation lumineuse en fonction du temps.Comptes Rendus de Séances de la Société de Biologie (Paris), 37, 493–495.Google Scholar
  4. Coltheart, M. (1984). Sensory memory — A tutorial review. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.),Attention and performance X, Control of language processes. London: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  5. Estes, W. K. (1978). Perceptual processing in letter recognition and reading. In E. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman (Eds).,Handbook of perception, Vol. IX. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Hagenaar, R. (1990). The partial-report bar-probe task and its errors (in preparation).Google Scholar
  7. Hagenzieker, M. P., & Van der Heijden, A. H. C. (1990). Time courses in visual information processing: Some theoretical considerations.Psychological Research, 52, 5–12Google Scholar
  8. Kahnemann, D. (1973).Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  9. Marr, D. (1980). Visual information processing: The structure and creation of visual representations.Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, London, B290, 199–218.Google Scholar
  10. Mewhort, D. J. K., & Campbell, A. J. (1978). Processing spatial information and the selective masking effect.Perception & Psychophysics, 24(1), 93–101.Google Scholar
  11. Mewhort, D. J. K., Campbell, A. J., Marchetti, F. M., & Campbell, J. I. D. (1981). Identification, localization, and “iconic memory”: An evaluation of the bar-probe task.Memory & Cognition, 9, 50–67.Google Scholar
  12. Tramer, S. (1981). Data versus probe errors in the bar-probe task: A re-evaluation of the dual-buffer model. Unpublished MA thesis, Queen's University at Kingston.Google Scholar
  13. Van der Heijden, A. H. C. (1987). Central selection in vision. In H. Heuer & A. F. Sanders (Eds.),Issues in perception and action. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. P. Hagenzieker
    • 1
  • A. H. C. van der Heijden
    • 1
  • R. Hagenaar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Psychology, Unit of Experimental PsychologyUniversity of LeidenLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations