Abstract
Past studies have shown that in certain tasks, subjects are not able to selectively attend to specific areas of a visual display even if instructed to do so. Yet, a more recent study (Graves, 1976) has used the concept of selective attention to explain the difference between the number of items processed in forced choice detection tasks and the number processed in full report tasks. Graves proposed that only identification processing is necessary in the detection task, while both identification and position processing are required in the full report task. A problem with Graves’ task is that it requires memory searching after stimulus presentation, probably reducing the predicted number of items processed. The experiment reported here utilized partially filled arrays and required responses based upon only positional processing, or only identification processing, or both types of processing. In direct contradiction to Graves’ conclusions, the results showed that although subjects could inhibit identification processing while engaged in positional processing, the reverse was not true. In addition, positional processing was shown to be faster than identification processing.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Atkinson, R. C., &Shiffrin, R. M. Human memory: A proposed system and its control processes. In K. W. Spence & J. T. Spence (Eds.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press, 1968.
Estes, W. K., &Taylor, H. A. A detection method and probabilistic models for assessing information processing from brief visual displays.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 1964,52, 446–454.
Graves, R. E. Are more items identified than can be reported?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 1976,2, 208–214.
Hays, W.Statistics. New York: Holt, Rinehart. & Winston, 1965.
Shiffrin, R. M. The locus and role of attention in memory systems. In P. M. A. Rabbitt & A. Dornic (Eds.).Attention and performance V. London: Academic Press, 1975.
Shiffrin, R. M., &Gardner G. T. Visual processing capacity and attentional control.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972,93, 72–82.
Shiffrin, R. M., Gardner, G. T., &Allmeyer, D. H. On the degree of attention and capacity limitations in visual processing.Perception & Psychophysics, 1973,14, 231–236.
Shiffrin, R. M., &Grantham, D. W. Can attention be allocated to sensory modalities?Perception & Psychophysics, 1974,15, 460–474.
Shiffrin, R. M., McKay, D. P., &Shaffer, W. O. Attending to forty-nine spatial positions at once.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1976,2, 14–22.
Sperling, G. The information available in brief visual presentations.Psychological Monographs, 1960,74(11, Whole No. 498).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hepler, S.P. Selective information processing. Memory & Cognition 5, 449–452 (1977). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197384
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197384