Abstract
A recent experiment by Haber and Hershenson (1965) had shown that in a recognition task one long look at a stimulus was always superior to two or more shorter looks summing to the same total presentation time. In order to explore this more fully and to account for opposite results in a different type of recognition task, as well as in a serial learning task, an improved replication of the earlier study was carried out using very short durations and single letters as stimuli. The same non-reciprocity was found, again strongly favoring duration over repetition as a determinant of clarity of a percept, even though repetition alone was also shown to be a significant independent variable. As a subsidiary finding, an error analysis showed that when a letter was misnamed it was nearly always confused with one that looked like it rather than one that sounded like it. Some discussion was offered as to the role of an auditory information storage in low memory load tasks such as this one, as well as some general implications for information processing analyses of the non-reciprocity of duration and repetition.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Boynton, R. M. Temporal processes in vision. In W. A. Rosenblith (Ed.),Sensory communication. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1961. Pp. 739–756.
Broadbent, D. E.Perception and communication. London: Pergamon Press, 1958. Pp. 297–301.
Eriksen, C. W., &Hoffman, M. Form recognition at brief durations as a function of adapting field and interval between stimulations.J. exp. Psychol., 1963, 66, 485–499.
Gilinsky, A. S. The span and the scale: a bridge between attention and memory.IBM Res. Rep., RC1214, 1964, 1–64.
Haber, R. N. The effect of prior knowledge of the stimulus on word recognition processes.J. exp. Psychol., 1965, 69, 282–286.
Haber, R. N. Repetition as a determinant of perceptual recognition processes. In J. C. Mott-Smith, W. Wather-Dunn, H. Blum, and P. Lieberman (Eds.),Symposium on models for the perception of speech and visual form. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1966a (in press).
Haber, R. N. Perceptual recognition: the direct effect of repetition, duration, frequency and prior knowledge. Paper presented at the Psychonomic Society Convention, St. Louis, 1966b (in preparation for publication).
Haber, R. N. Perceptual processes and general cognitive activity. In J. P. Voss (Ed.),Approaches to thought. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1967 (in press).
Haber, R. N., &Hershenson, M. The effects of repeated brief exposures on the growth of a percept.J. exp. Psychol., 1965, 69, 40–46.
Haber, R. N., &Hillman, E. R. Changes in single letter clarity with repetition.Percept. & Psychophys., 1966, 1, 347–350.
Haber, R. N., & Meiselman, C. H. Estimates of false alarm reports in studies of perceptual recognition. Paper in preparation, 1967.
Hershenson, M. Perceptual microgenesis as a function of “word” structure. Paper presented at Midwestern Psychological Association Meeting, 1965.
Hershenson, M., &Haber, R. N. The role of meaning in the perception of briefly presented words.Canad. J. Psychol., 1965, 19, 42–46.
Kaplan, G. A., Vonas, A., &Shurcliff, A. Visual and acoustic confusability in a visual search task.Percept. & Psychophys., 1966, 1, 172–174.
Mayzner, M. S., &Schoenberg, K. M. Short term retention and presentation rate.Psychon. Sci., 1965, 2, 111–112.
Melton, A. W. Implications of short term memory for a general theory of memory.J. verbal Learn, verbal Behav., 1963, 2, 1–21.
Pylyshyn, Z. W. Information available from two consecutive exposures of visual displays.Canad. J. Psychol., 1965, 19, 133–144.
Smith, F., &Carey, P. Temporal factors in visual information processing.Canad. J. Psychol., 1966, 20, 337–342.
Sperling, G. The information available in brief visual presentations.Psychol. Monogr., 1960, 74, Whole Number 498.
Sperling, G. A model for visual memory tasks.Hum. Factors, 1963, 5, 19–31.
Sperling, G.Successive approximations to a model for short term memory.Proc. 18th Int. Cong. Psychol., Moscow, 1966, Amsterdam: North Holland Publishing Company, 1967, (in press).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported in part by grants from the National Science Foundation, GB-2909, and the United States Public Health Service, MH-10753, to the second author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dainoff, M., Haber, R.N. How much help do repeated presentations give to recognition processes?. Perception & Psychophysics 2, 131–136 (1967). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210307
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03210307