Semantic repetition blindness and associative facilitation in the identification of stimuli in rapid serial visual presentation
- 21 Downloads
Repetition blindness (RB) is the inability to detect both instances of a repeated stimulus during rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP). Prior work has demonstrated RB for semantically related critical items presented as pictures, but not for word stimuli. It is not known whether the type of semantic relationship between critical items (i.e., conceptual similarity or lexical association) determines the manifestation of semantically mediated RB, or how this is affected by the format of the stimuli. These questions provided the motivation for the present study. Participants reported items presented in picture or word RSVP streams in which critical items were either low-associate category coordinates (horse–camel), high-associate noncoordinates (horse–saddle), or unrelated word pairs (horse–umbrella). Report accuracy was reduced for category coordinate critical items only when they were presented in pictorial form; accuracy for coordinate word pairs did not differ from that of their unrelated counterparts. Associated critical items were reported more accurately than unrelated critical items in both the picture and word versions of the task. We suggest that semantic RB for pictorial stimuli results from intracategory interference in the visuosemantic space; words do not reliably suffer from semantic RB because they do not necessitate semantic mediation to be reported successfully. Conversely, the associative facilitation observed in both picture and word versions of the task reflects the spread of activation between the representations of associates in the lexical network.
KeywordsRepetition blindness Rapid serial visual presentation Associative facilitation
Irina M. Harris was supported in part by a Future Fellowship (FT0992123) from the Australian Research Council.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
M.S. Seet declares that he/she has no conflict of interest. S. Andrews declares that he/she has no conflict of interest. I.M. Harris declares that he/she has no conflict of interest.
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
- Abdel Rahman, R., & Melinger, A. (2009). Semantic context effects in language production: A swinging lexical network proposal and a review. Language and Cognitive Processes, 24(5), 713–734.Google Scholar
- Arnell, K. M., & Jolicoeur, P. (1997). Repetition blindness for pseudoobject pictures. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23(4), 999–1013.Google Scholar
- Bavelier, D., & Potter, M. C. (1992). Visual and phonological codes in repetition blindness. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18(1), 134–147.Google Scholar
- Burgess, C., & Lund, K. (1997). Modelling parsing constraints with high-dimensional context space. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(2/3), 177–210.Google Scholar
- Harris, I. M., Murray, A. M., Hayward, W. G., O’Callaghan, C., & Andrews, S. (2012). Repetition blindness reveals differences between the representations of manipulable and nonmanipulable objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(5), 1228–1241.Google Scholar
- Hutchison, K. A. (2003). Is semantic priming due to association strength or feature overlap? A microanalytic review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10(4), 785–813.Google Scholar
- Kanwisher, N., & Potter, M. C. (1990). Repetition blindness: Levels of processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16(1), 30–47.Google Scholar
- Kanwisher, N., Yin, C., & Wojciulik, E. (1999). Repetition blindness for pictures: Evidence for the rapid computation of abstract visual descriptions. In V. Coltheart (Ed.), Fleeting memories: Cognition of brief visual stimuli (pp. 119–150). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
- La Heij, W., Dirkx, J., & Kramer, P. (1990). Categorical interference and associative priming in picture naming. British Journal of Psychology, 81(4), 511–525.Google Scholar
- Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(4), 476–490.Google Scholar
- McRae, K., Cree, G. S., Seidenberg, M. S., & McNorgan, C. (2005). Semantic feature production norms for a large set of living and nonliving things. Behavior Research Methods, 37(4), 547–559.Google Scholar
- Morris, S. B., & Deshon, R. P. (2002). Combining effect size estimates in meta-analysis with repeated measures and independent-groups designs. Psychological Methods, 7(1), 105–125.Google Scholar
- Nelson, D. L., McEvoy, C. L., & Schreiber, T. A. (2004). The University of South Florida free association, rhyme, and word fragment norms. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(3), 402–407.Google Scholar
- Smith, M. C., & Magee, L. E. (1980). Tracing the time course of picture–word processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 109(4), 373–392.Google Scholar
- Snodgrass, J. G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standardized set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity, and visual complexity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 6(2), 174–215.Google Scholar