Abstract
In six experiments using the speeded classification paradigm, we provide evidence that the ostensibly “separable” dimensions of size and orientation can produce patterns of either separability or asymmetric configurality, depending on the spatial arrangement of the stimuli. In all experiments, subjects classified large or small circles contairting a single line in one of two possible orientations. When the line touched the circle’s perimeter, thereby defining the diameter of the circle (Experiments 1–4), asymmetric configurality obtained: Variations in size interfered with classification by orientation, but variations in orientation did not interfere with classification by size, and redundancy gain was weak or absent. When the lines fell completely within (i.e., did not touch) the circles (Experiments 5 and 6), the results were consistent with separability: There was neither redundancy gain nor interference. Taken together, the results add to the growing body of evidence that classification of specific dimensional pairs as separable or integral may be less feasible than identifying the more general conditions that increase or decrease the psychological salience of dimensional structures and facilitate or interfere with selection of optimal processing strategies.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ashby, F. G., &Lee, W. W. (1991). Predicting similarity and categorization from identification.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,120, 150–172.
Ashby, F. G., &Maddox, W. T. (1990). Integrating information from separable dimensions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,16, 598–612.
Ashby, F. G., &Maddox, W. T. (1994). A response time theory of separability and integrality in speeded classification.Journal of Mathematical Psychology.38, 423–466.
Ashby, F. G., &Townsend, J. T. (1986). Varieties of perceptual independence.Psychological Review,93, 154–179.
Felfoldy, G. L., &Garner, W. R. (1971). The effects on speeded classification of implicit and explicit instructions regarding redundant dimensions.Perception & Psychophysics,9, 289–292.
Foard, C. F., &Kemler Nelson, D. G. (1984). Holistic and analytic modes of processing: The multiple determinants of perceptual analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,113, 94–111.
Garner, W. R. (1970). The stimulus in information processing.American Psychologist,25, 350–358.
Garner, W. R. (1974).The processing of information and structure. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Garner, W. R. (1976). Interaction of stimulus dimensions in concept and choice processes.Cognitive Psychology,8, 98–123.
Garner, W. R., &Felfoldy, G. L. (1970). Integrality of stimulus dimensions in various types of information processing.Cognitive Psychology,1, 225–241.
Huynh, H., &Feldt, L. S. (1976). Estimation of the Box correction for degrees of freedom from sample data in randomized block and splitplot designs.Journal of Educational Statistics,1, 69–82.
Hyman, R., &Well, A. (1967). Judgments of similarity and spatial models.Perception & Psychophysics,2, 233–248.
Hyman, R., &Well, A. (1968). Perceptual separability and spatial models.Perception & Psychophysics,3, 161–165.
Imai, S., &Garner, W. R. (1965). Discriminability and preference for attributes in free and constrained classification.Journal of Experimental Psychology,69, 596–608.
Kemler, D. G. (1983). Exploring and reexploring issues of integrality, perceptual sensitivity, and dimensional salience.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,36, 365–379.
Kemler, D. G., &Smith, L. B. (1979). Accessing similarity and dimensional relations: Effects of integrality and separability on the discovery of complex concepts.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,108, 133–150.
Lockhead, G. R. (1966). Effects of dimensional redundancy on visual discrimination.Journal of Experimental Psychology,72, 95–104.
Lockhead, G. R., &King, M. C. (1977). Classifying integral stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,3, 436–443.
Melara, R. D., &Marks, L. E. (1990). Perceptual primacy of dimensions: Support for a model of dimensional interaction.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,16, 398–414.
Melara, R. D., Marks, L. E., &Potts, B. C. (1993). Primacy of dimensions in color perception.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 1082–1114.
Pomerantz, J. R., &Garner, W. R. (1973). Stimulus configuration in selective attention tasks.Perception & Psychophysics,14, 565–569.
Pomerantz, J. R., &Pristach, E. A. (1989). Emergent features, attention, and perceptual glue in visual form perception.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,15, 635–649.
Pomerantz, J. R., Pristach, E. A., &Carson, C. E. (1989). Attention and object perception. In B. E. Shepp & S. Ballesteros (Eds.),Object perception: Structure and process (pp. 53–89). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Pomerantz, J. R., Sager, L. C. &Stoever, R. J. (1977). Perception of wholes and of their component parts: Some configurai superiority effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,3, 422–435.
Pomerantz, J. R., &Schwaitzberg, S. D. (1975). Grouping by proximity: Selective attention measures.Perception & Psychophysics,18, 355–361.
Shepard, R. N. (1964). Attention and the metric structure of the stimulus space.Journal of Mathematical Psychology,1, 54–87.
Shepp, B. E. (1978). From perceived similarity to dimensional structure: A new hypothesis about perceptual development. In E. H. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.),Cognition and categorization (pp. 135–167). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shepp, B. E. (1989). On perceiving objects: Holistic versus featural properties. In B. E. Shepp & S. Ballesteros (Eds.),Object perception: Structure and process (pp. 203–233). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Smith, J. D., &Baron, J. (1981). Individual differences in the classification of stimuli by dimensions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,7, 1132–1145.
Smith, L. B., &Evans, P. M. (1989). Similarity, identity, and dimensions: Perceptual classification in children and adults. In B. E. Shepp & S. Ballesteros (Eds.),Object perception: Structure and process (pp. 325–356). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Smith, L. B., &Kemler, D. G. (1978). Levels of experienced dimensionality in children and adults.Cognitive Psychology,10, 502–532.
Smith, L. B., &Kilroy, M. C. (1979). A continuum of dimensional separability.Perception & Psychophysics,25, 285–291.
Townsend, J. T., &Thomas, R. D. (1993). On the need for a general quantitative theory of pattern similarity. In S. C. Masin (Ed.),Foundations of perceptual theory (pp. 297–368). New York: Elsevier.
Ward, L. M. (1982). Determinants of attention to local and global features of visual forms.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,8, 562–581.
Ward, T. B. (1985). Individual differences in processing stimulus dimensions: Relation to selective processing abilities.Perception & Psychophysics,37, 471–482.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grant NS 28617 to R.D.M. and NIH Grant DC00271 to L.E.M.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Potts, B.C., Melara, R.D. & Marks, L.E. Circle size and diameter tilt: A new look at integrality and separability. Perception & Psychophysics 60, 101–112 (1998). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211921
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211921