Abstract
The potential role of selectivity in visual perception was investigated for stimuli containing multiple components. Primary interest centered on the role of prior emphasis on the perceptual processing of one component, relative to the perceptual fate of the remaining components in the stimulus, and whether unemphasized components fared less well than those same components on an uninstructed trial. On each trial, a face, scrambled face, or single-component stimulus was briefly presented, followed by a patterned mask and a forced choice test of each of the components teye, nose, mouth). On a cued trial, the subject was instructed to emphasize one component, although all three components were subsequently tested; on an uncued trial, no prior instructions were given. The results indicated that identification of an emphasized stimulus component was enhanced, but only at the detriment of the remaining components; that is, components were perceived more accurately on an uncued trial than unemphasized components on a cued trial. Although face and scrambled face stimuli were perceived unequally, the effectiveness of prior instructions was equivalent. Surprisingly, the overall identifiability of the components within a stimulus was independent of prior instructions, and suggested that a finite capacity is available for perceptual analysis.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Beck, J., &Ambler, B. The effects of concentrated and distributed attention on peripheral acuity.Perception & Psychophysics, 1973,14, 225–230.
Egeth, H., Jonides, J., &Wall, S. Parallel processing of multielement displays.Cognitive Psychology, 1972,3, 674–698.
Egeth, H., &Smith, E. E. Perceptual selectivity in a visual recognition task.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967,74, 543–549.
Estes, W. K. Interaction of signal and background variables in visual processing.Perception & Psychophysics, 1972,12, 278–286.
Gardner, G. T. Evidence for independent parallel channels in tachistoscopic perception.Cognitive Psychology, 1973,4, 130–155.
Gummerman, K. Knowledge of alternatives and perception of tachistoscopic stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970,83, 385–390.
Homa, D., Haver, B., &Schwartz, T. Perceptibility of schematic face stimuli: Evidence for a perceptual gestalt.Memory & Cognition, 1976,4, 176–185.
Kubicek, L. F., &Erdelyi, M. H. Effects of priority instructions on processing hypercapacity sequential inputs of pictures and words.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974,103, 729–731.
Neisser, U.Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967.
Neisser, U., &Becklen, R. Selective looking: Attending to visually specified events.Cognitive Psychology, 1975,7, 480–494.
Reicher, G. M. Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus materials.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969,81,275–280.
Rumelhart, D. E. A multicompnent theory of the perception of briefly exposed visual displays.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1970,7, 191–218.
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., 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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
Portions of this experiment were presented to the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, Phoenix, Arizona, May 1976.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Homa, D., Coury, B. Perceptual selectivity and the fate of unemphasized information in a stimulus complex. Memory & Cognition 5, 347–354 (1977). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197582
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197582