Abstract
Boundary conditions for the object superiority effect (OSE, target lines embedded in meaningful drawings are more accurately identified than the same targets embedded in nonmeaningful drawings; Weisstein & Harris, 1974) were sought by examining two variables known to affect the word superiority effect. A robust OSE was obtained in both two- and four-alternative tasks with no mask or speed requirement. The OSE was eliminated by either a random masking stimulus composed of dots or lines (Experiment 1) or by requiring speeded identification responses (Experiment 2). An information processing model is proposed to account for the OSE, as well as the exceptions reported herein. It is shown that this model can be modified to deal with the analogous word superiority effect.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Reference Note
1. Juola, J., Choe, C., & Leavitt, D.A reanalysis of the word-superiority effect. Paper presented at the 15th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Boston, Massachusetts, 1974.
References
Baron, J. The word superiority effect. In W. K. Estes (Ed.),Handbook of learning and cognitive processes, 5. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, in press.
Berbaum, K., Weisstein, N., &Harris, C. A. Certain types of vertices and line detection.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1975,6, 418. (Abstract)
Craik, F. M., &Lockhart, R. S. Levels of processing: A framework for memory research.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 1972,11, 671–784.
Hawkins, H., Reicher, G., Rogers, M., &Peterson, L. Flexible coding in word recognition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1976,2, 380–385.
Hock, H. The effects of stimulus structure and familiarity on same-different comparison.Perception & Psychophysics, 1973,14, 413–420.
Johnston, J. C., &McClelland, J. L. Visual factors in word perception.Perception & Psychophysics, 1973,14, 365–370.
Mezrich, J. The word superiority effect in brief displays: Elimination by vocalization.Perception & Psychophysics, 1973,13, 45–48.
Polf, J.The word superiority effect: A speed accuracy analysis and test of a decoding hypothesis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon, 1976.
Posner, M. I. Abstraction and the process of recognition. In G. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 3). New York: Academic Press, 1969.
Reicher, G. Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness of stimulus material.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969,81, 274–280.
Rumelhart, D. E., &Siple, P. The process of recognizing tachistoscopically presented words.Psychological Review, 1974,81, 99–118.
Weisstein, N.,&Harris, C. S. Visual detection of line segments. An object-superiority effect.Science, 1974,186, 752–755.
Weisstein, N., & Maguire, W. Computing the next step. Psychophysical measures of representation and interpretation. In E. M. Riseman and A. R. Hanson (Eds.),Computer vision systems. New York: Academic Press, in press.
Wheeler, D. Processes in word recognition.Cognitive Psychology, 1970,1, 59–85.
Wickelgren, W. A. Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics.Acta Psychologica, 1977,41, 67–85.
Williams, A., &Weisstein, N. The time course of object superiority.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1976,8, 260. (Abstract)
Womersley, M. A contextual effect in feature detection with application of signal detection methodology.Perception & Psychophysics, 1977,21, 88–92.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Klein, R. Visual detection of line segments: Two exceptions to the object superiority effect. Perception & Psychophysics 24, 237–242 (1978). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206094
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206094