Abstract
Six Ss discriminated seven-letter nonsense words from comparison words. Target and comparison words differed on randomly selected trials by one randomly chosen letter. Target words were displayed for 50, 55, 60, 70, 90, or 200 msec, and were preceded and followed by a masking field. In one condition the Ss were familiarized with the comparison words, and in another they were not. Discrimination was better for familiar words at all display durations. There was an interaction between familiarity and the letter position effect. For unfamiliar words the typical bow-shaped position effect occurred. For familiar words no marked position effect occurred. An identification condition using unfamiliar words found no interaction between letter position and display duration. The results are interpreted as evidence that familiarity removes a letter position effect that depends upon serial transfer from a nonmaskable mediating visual representation that is constructed from a maskable representation by nonserial processes.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
BROADBENT, D. E. Word-frequency effect and response bias. Psychological Review, 1967, 75, 1–15.
CROSLAND, H. R. Letter-position effects in the range of attention experiment, as affected by the number of letters in each exposure. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1931, 14, 477–507.
EARHARD, B., & FULLERTON, R. How much does repetition facilitate perception? Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 81, 101–108.
ERIKSEN, C. W., & STEFFY, R. Short-term memory and retroactive interference in visual perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1964, 68, 423–434.
GREEN, D. M., & SWETS, J. A.Signal detection theory and psychophysics. New York: Wiley, 1966.
HARCUM, E. R. Parallel functions of serial learning and tachistoscopic pattern perception. Psychological Review, 1967, 74, 51–62.
HERON, W. Perception as a function of retinal focus and attention. American Journal of Psychology, 1957, 70, 38–48.
HERSHENSON, M. Stimulus structure, cognitive structure and the perception of letter arrays. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 79, 327–335.
KAHNEMAN, D. Method, findings and theory in studies of visual masking. Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 6, 404–425.
LISS, P. Does backward masking by visual noise stop stimulus processing? Perception & Psychophysics, 1968, 6, 328–330
MEWHORT, D. J. K., MERIKLE, P. M., & BRYDEN, M. P. On the transfer from iconic to short-term memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 81, 89–94.
NEISSER, U.Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967.
PHILLIPS, W. A., & BADDELEY, A. D. Reaction time and short-term visual memory. Psychonomic Science, 1971, 22. 73–74.
POSNER, M. I., BOIES, S. J., EICHELMAN, W. H., & TAYLOR, R. L. Retention of visual and name codes of single letters. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969, 79, No. 3, Pt. 2. Monograph, 1–16.
SPERLING, G. The information available in brief visual presentations. Psychological Monographs, 1960, 74 (Whole No. 498), 1–29.
SPERLING, G. A model for visual memory tasks. Human Factors, 1963, 5, 19–31.
SPERLING, G. Successive approximations to a model for short-term memory. Acta Psychologica, 1967, 27, 285–292.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was carried out at the Australian National University during the tenure of an Australian National University research scholarship.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Phillips, W.A. Does familiarity affect transfer from an iconic to a short-term memory?. Perception & Psychophysics 10, 153–157 (1971). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205776
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03205776