During a 1-sec tachistoscopic exposure, Ss responded with a right or left leverpress to a single target letter from the sets H and K or S and C. The target always appeared directly above the fixation cross. Experimentally varied were the types of noise letters (response compatible or incompatible) flanking the target and the spacing between the letters in the display. In all noise conditions, reaction time (RT) decreased as between-letter spacing increased. However, noise letters of the opposite response set were found to impair RT significantly more than same response set noise, while mixed noise letters belonging to neither set but having set-related features produced intermediate impairment. Differences between two target-alone control conditions, one presented intermixed with noise-condition trials and one presented separately in blocks, gave evidence of a preparatory set on the part of Ss to inhibit responses to the noise letters. It was concluded that S cannot prevent processing of noise letters occurring within about 1 deg of the target due to the nature of processing channel capacity and must inhibit his response until he is able to discriminate exactly which letter is in the target position. This discrimination is more difficult and time consuming at closer spacings, and inhibition is more difficult when noise letters indicate the opposite response from the targe
Bamber, D. Reaction times and error rates for “same”-“different” judgments of multidimensional stimuli. Perception & Psychophysics, 1969, 6, 169–174.
Bjork, E. L., & Estes, W. K. Letter identification in relation to linguistic context and masking conditions. Memory & Cognition, 1973, 1, 217–223.
Colegate, R. L., Hoffman, J. E., & Eriksen, C. W. Selective encoding from multielement visual displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 1973, 14, 217–224.
Eriksen, C. W., & Hoffanan, J. E. Temporal and spatial characteristics of selective encoding from visual displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 1972, 12, 201–204.
Eriksen, C. W., & Hoffman, J. E. The extent of processing of noise elements during selective encoding from visual displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 1973, 14, 155–160.
Estes, W. K. Interactions of signal and background variables in visual processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 1972, 12, 278–286.
Flom, M. C., Weymouth, F. W., & Kahneman, D. Visual resolution and contour interaction. Journal of the Optical Society of America, 1963, 53, 1026–1032.
Gardner, G. T. Evidence for independent parallel channels in tachistoscopic perception. Cognitive Psychology, 1973, 4, 130–155.
Gibson, E. J.Principles of perceptual learning and development. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969,
Guttman, N., & Kalish, H. I. Discriminability and stimulus generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1956, 51, 79–88.
Kinchla, R. Detecting target elements in multielement arrays: A confusability model. Perception & Psychophysics, 1974, 15, 149–158.
McIntyre, C., Fox, R., & Neale, J. Effects of noise similarity and redundancy on the information processed from brief visual displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 1970, 7, 328–332.
Rumelhart, D. E. A multicomponent theory of the perception of briefly exposed visual displays. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1970, 7, 191–218.
Shiffrin, R., & Gardner, G. T. Visual processing capacity and attentional control. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972, 93, 72–82.
Sternberg, S. Two operations in character recognition: Some evidence from reaction time measurements. Perception & Psychophysics, 1967, 2, 45–53.
This investigation was supported by U.S. Public Health Service Research Grant MH-1206 and U.S. Public Health Service Research Career Program Award K6-MH-22014.
About this article
Cite this article
Eriksen, B.A., Eriksen, C.W. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics 16, 143–149 (1974). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203267
- Visual Angle
- Target Letter
- Noise Condition
- Close Spacing
- Opposite Response