Abstract
The task required subjects to judge whether members of six-letter consonant string pairs were physically identical. Some (repeated) strings were presented on each of the 16 training sessions, while other (nonrepeated) strings were presented only during a single session. An advantage in matching time of repeated strings over nonrepeated strings was obtained which increased in a roughly linear fashion during training and which persisted for at least 7 weeks after the last training session. Detailed analyses of thedifferent responses and the results of several transfer tasks suggest that perceptual processing is indeed facilitated by acquired information about which letters usually follow others and about the positions in which these sequences of letters are likely to occur, but provide no evidence that this facilitation derives from the formation of visual features which are larger than single letters.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Baron, J. Facilitation of perception by spelling constraints.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1974,28, 37–50.
Baron, J. The word superiority effect. In W. K. Estes (Ed.),Handbook of learning and cognitive processes. Potomac, Md: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, in press.
Baron, J., &Thurston, I. An analysis of the word-superiority effect.Cognitive Psychology, 1973,4, 207–288.
Eichelman, W. H. Familiarity effects in the simultaneous matching task.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1970,86, 275–282.
Gibson, E. J.Principles of perceptual learning and development. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969.
Henderson, L. A word superiority effect without orthographic assistance.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974,26, 301–311.
Krueger, L. E. Familiarity effects in visual information processing.Psychological Bulletin, 1975,82, 949–974.
Piaget, J.The mechanisms of perception. New York: Basic Books, 1969.
Reicher, G. M. Perceptual recognition as a function of the meaningfulness of the material.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969,81, 275–280.
Schindler, R., Well, A., &Pollatsek, A. Effects of segmentation and expectancy on matching time for words and nonwords.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974,103, 107–111.
Smith, E. E., &Spoehr, K. T. The perception of printed English: A theoretical perspective. In B. Kantowitz (Ed.),Human information processing Tutorials in performance and cognition. Potomac, Md: Erlbaum Press, 1974.
Sternberg, S. Memory-scanning: Mental processes revealed by reaction-time experiments.American Scientist, 1969,57, 421–457.
Well, A., Pollatsek, A., &Schindler, R. Facilitation of both “same” and “different” judgments of letter strings by familiarity of letter sequence.Perception & Psychophysics, 1975,17, 511–520.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported in part by National Science Foundation Social Science Development Grant GU-4041, and in part by a grant from the Research Council of the University of Massachusetts to the second author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Schindler, R.M., Well, A.D. & Pollatsek, A. Inducing the familiarity effect. Perception & Psychophysics 19, 425–432 (1976). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199403
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199403