Advertisement

Semantic repetition blindness and associative facilitation in the identification of stimuli in rapid serial visual presentation

  • Manuel S. SeetEmail author
  • Sally Andrews
  • Irina M. Harris
Article
  • 21 Downloads

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Repetition blindness Rapid serial visual presentation Associative facilitation 

Notes

Funding

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.

Ethical approval

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

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Bavelier, D. (1994). Repetition blindness between visually different items: The case of pictures and words. Cognition, 51(3), 199–236.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Buchanan, E. M., Holmes, J. L., Teasley, M. L., & Hutchison, K. A. (2013). English semantic word-pair norms and a searchable Web portal for experimental stimulus creation. Behavior Research Methods, 45(3), 746–757.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Burgess, C., & Lund, K. (1997). Modelling parsing constraints with high-dimensional context space. Language and Cognitive Processes, 12(2/3), 177–210.Google Scholar
  7. Harris, I. M., & Dux, P. E. (2005). Orientation-invariant object recognition: Evidence from repetition blindness. Cognition, 95(1), 73–93.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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
  11. 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
  12. Kanwisher, N. G. (1987). Repetition blindness: Type recognition without token individuation. Cognition, 27(2), 117–143.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Loftus, G. R., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(4), 476–490.Google Scholar
  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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
  18. Peirce, J. W. (2007). PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in Python. Journal of Neuroscience Methods, 162(1), 8–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Roelofs, A. (1992). A spreading-activation theory of lemma retrieval in speaking. Cognition, 42(1/3), 107–142.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Saksida, L. M., & Bussey, T. J. (2010). The representational-hierarchical view of amnesia: Translation from animal to human. Neuropsychologia, 48(8), 2370–2384.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 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
  22. 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
  23. Stolz, J., & Neely, J. (2008). Calling all codes: Interactive effects of semantics, phonology, and orthography produce dissociations in a repetition blindness paradigm. The American Journal of Psychology, 121(1), 105–128.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Manuel S. Seet
    • 1
    Email author
  • Sally Andrews
    • 1
  • Irina M. Harris
    • 1
  1. 1.School of PsychologyUniversity of SydneySydneyAustralia

Personalised recommendations