Abstract
When subjects identify a target stimulus with an assigned keypress response, flanking noise stimuli produce interference if they signal an alternative response and slight facilitation if they are identical to the target. However, when the possible stimuli come from two distinct categories Getters and digits), interference also occurs if the noise letters are identical to the target. Four experiments were conducted to determine whether this mixed-category, repeated-stimulus inferiority effect is due to stimulus-identification or response-selection processes. The inferiority effect was (1) absent when letters were assigned to one response and digits to another; (2) absent when the target stimulus was named, rather than identified by a keypress response; and (3) eliminated when subjects practiced with mixed assignments of letters and digits. These findings converge on a response-selection basis for the inferiority effect.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Anderson, J. R. (1983).The architecture of cognition. Cambridge. MA: Harvard.
Bjork, E. L., &Murray, J. T. (1977). On the nature of input channels in visual processing.Psychological Review,84, 472–484.
Corcoran, D. W. J., &Jackson, A. (1977). Basic processes and strategies in visual search. In S. Domic (Ed.),Attention and performance VI (pp. 387–411). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
Duncan, J. (1983). Category effects in visual search: A failure to replicate the “oh-zero” phenomenon.Perception & Psychophysics,34, 221–232.
Eriksen, B. A., &Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task.Perception & Psychophysics,16, 143–149.
Eriksen, C. W., &Eriksen, B. A. (1979). Target redundancy in visual search: Do repetitions of the target within the display impair processing?Perception & Psychophysics,26, 195–205.
Eriksen, C. W., Morris, N., Yeh, Y.Y., O’hara, W., &Durst, R. T. (1981). Is recognition accuracy really impaired when the target is repeated in the display?Perception & Psychophysics,30, 375–385.
Eriksen, C. W., &Schultz, D. W. (1979). Information processing in visual search: A continuous flow conception and experimental results.Perception & Psychophysics,25, 249–263.
Estes, W. K. (1982). Similarity-related channel interactions in visual processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,8, 353–382.
Estes, W. K., Allmeyer, D. H., &Reder, S. M. (1976). Serial position functions for letter identification at brief and extended exposure durations.Perception & Psychophysics,19, 1–15.
Flowers, J. H. (1985). Priming effects in perceptual classification. Unpublished manuscript.
Flowers, J. H., &Wilcox, N. (1982). The effect of flanking context on visual classification: The joint contribution of interactions at different processing levels.Perception & Psychophysics,32, 581–591.
Forrin, B., Kumler, M. L., &Morin, R. E. (1966). The effects of response code and signal probability in a numeral-naming task.Canadian Journal of Psychology,20, 115–124.
Krueger, L. E. (1978). A theory of perceptual matching.Psychological Review,85, 278–304.
Krueger, L. E. (1984). The category effect in visual search depends on physical rather than conceptual differences.Perception & Psychophysics,35, 558–564.
Krueger, L. E. (1986). Positive effect of heterogeneity of difference on the same-different disparity in letter matching.Perception & Psychophysics,39, 117–122.
Laberge, D. (1981). Unitization and automaticity in perception. In J. H. Flowers (Ed.),1980 Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Cognitive processes (Vol. 28, pp. 53–71). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
La Heu, W., &Vermeij, M. (1987). Reading versus naming: The effect of target set size on contextual interference and facilitation.Perception & Psychophysics,41, 355–366.
Proctor, R. W. (1981). A unified theory for matching-task phenomena.Psychological Review,88, 291–326.
Proctor, R. W., &Fober, G. W. (1985). Repeated-stimulus superiority and inferiority effects in the identification of letters and digits.Perception & Psychophysics,38, 125–134.
Proctor, R. W., Nunn, M. B., &Pallos, I. (1983). The influence of metacontrast masking on detection and spatial-choice judgments: An apparent distinction between automatic and attentive response mechanisms.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,9, 278–287.
Proctor, R. W., &Reeve, T. G. (1985). Compatibility effects in the assignment of symbolic stimuli to discrete finger responses.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,11, 623–639.
Proctor, R. W., &Reeve, T. G. (1988). The acquisition of task-specific productions and modification of declarative representations in spatial precuing tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,117, 182–196.
Santee, J. L., &Egeth, H. E. (1980). Interference in letter identification: A test of feature-specific inhibition.Perception & Psychophysics,27, 321–330.
Santee, J. L, &Egeth, H. E. (1982). Do reaction time and accuracy measure the same aspects of letter recognition?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,8, 489–501.
Schneider, W., &Fisk, A. D. (1983). Attention theory and mechanisms for skilled performance. In R. A. Magill (Ed.),Memory and control of action (pp. 119–143). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Shapiro, R. G, &Krueger, L. E. (1983). Effect of similarity of surround on target-letter processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,9, 547–559.
Smith, E. E. (1968). Choice reaction time: An analysis of the major theoretical positions.Psychological Bulletin,69, 77–100.
Taylor, D. A. (1977). Time course of context effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,106, 404–426.
Teichner, W. H., &Krebs, M. J. (1974). Laws of visual choice reaction time. Psychological Review,81, 75–98.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported in part by Grant AFOSR-88-0002 from the Air Force Office of Scientific Research to the first author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Proctor, R.W., Fober, G.W. A response-selection basis for the mixed-category, repeated-stimulus inferiority effect. Perception & Psychophysics 44, 182–190 (1988). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208711
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208711