Abstract
Previous research had indicated that when subjects are instructed to report one of a number of visually displayed items, both the number and spacing of the presented material affect report accuracy and latency. The present experiment sought to determine the nature and temporal course of the interference provided by nonattended visual material. Subjects reaction times were measured for deciding which of two targets occupied the indicated position in one or eight element displays. Placing replicas of the target in nonindicated display positions was equivalent to presenting the target alone. Members of the opposite response set produced maximum interference, while encodable and unencodable noise elements not belonging to a response set produced an intermediate decrement. For all display types, presenting the indicator prior to display onset decreased reaction time. Dividing each of the display elements into two parts and presenting the parts asynchronously provided evidence that subjects were indifferent to the presence of complete forms for the first 50 msec. These results were interpreted as supporting the existence of a hiararchical sequence of stages consisting of a preattentive stage which segregates the input into objects and an attentive stage which is likened to a spatial scanner responsible for synthesizing the crude preattentive features into recognized forms. The concurrent operation of these stages provides for the redirection of attention when changes in the input are detected.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Beck, J., &Ambler, B. The effects of concentrated and distributed attention on peripheral acuity.Perception & Psychophysics, 1973,14, 225–230.
Colegate, R. L., Hoffman, J. E., &Eriksen, C. W. Selective encoding from multielement visual displays.Perception & Psychophysics, 1973,14, 217–224.
Cornsweet, T. N.Visual perception. New York: Academic Press, 1970.
Eriksen, B. A., &Eriksen, C. W. The importance of being first: A tachistoscopic study of the contribution of each letter to the recognition of four-letter words.Perception & Psychophysics, 1974,15, 66–72. (a)
Eriksen, B. A., &Eriksen, C. W. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task.Perception & Psychophysics, 1974,16, 143–149. (b)
Eriksen, C. W., &Hoffman, 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, 217–224.
Eriksen, C. W.. &Rohrbaught, J. W. Some factors determining efficiency of selective attention.American Journal of Psychology, 1970,83, 330–342.
Eriksen, C. W., &Spencer, T. Rate of information processing in visual perception: Some results and methodological considerations.Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph, 1969,79, 1–16.
Estes, W. K. Interactions of signal and background variables in visual processing.Perception & Psychophysics, 1972,12, 278–280.
Gardner, G. T. Evidence for independent parallel channels in tachistoscopic perception.Cognitive Psychology, 1973,4, 130–155.
Guzman, A. Decomposition of a visual scene into three-dimensional bodies, in A. Grasselh (Ed.),Automatic interpretation and classification of images. New York: Academic Press, 1969.
Holmgren, J. E. The effect of a visual indicator on rate of visual search: Evidence for processing control.Perception & Psychophysics, 1974,15, 544–550.
Kinchla, R. A. Detecting target elements hi multi-element arrays: A confusability model.Perception & Psychophysics, 1974,15, 149–158.
Neisser, T.Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts. 1967.
Rohrbaugh, J. W., &Eriksen, C. W. Reaction time measurement of temporal integration and organization of form.Perception & Psychophysics, 1975,17, 53–58.
Shiffrin, R. M., &Gardner, G. T. Visual processing capacity and attentional control.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972,93, 72–82.
Shiffrin, R. M., &Geisler, W. S. Visual recognition in a theory of information processing. In R. Solso (Ed.),The Loyola Symposium. Contemporary viewpoints in cognitive psychology. Washington: Winston, 1973.
Sokolov, E. N. Neuronal models and the orienting reflex. In M. A. B. Brazier (Ed.),The central nervous system and behavior. New York: Josiah Macy, Jr., Foundation, 1960.
Spencer, T. J. Some effects of different masking stimuli on iconic storage.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1969,81, 132–140.
Sperling, G. The information available in brief visual presentations.Psychological Monographs, 1960,74, No. 11.
Townsend, J. T., Taylor, S. G., &Brown, D. R. Lateral masking for letters with unlimited viewing time.Perception & Psychophysics, 1971,10, 375–378.
Treisman, A. M. Contextual cues in selective listening.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1960,12, 242–248.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This work is based on a doctoral dissertation submitted to the University of Illinois in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a PhD degree. This research was supported by United States Public Health Service Research Grant MH-1206 and Career Program Award K6-MH-22014 to Charles W. Eriksen.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hoffman, J.E. Hierarchical stages in the processing of visual information. Perception & Psychophysics 18, 348–354 (1975). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211211
Received:
Revised:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211211