Abstract
Sequential effects were used to diagnose whether elements in a two-object-comparison-task are represented as a perceptual unit or separately. The presence of sequential effects and absence of influences of individual elements on the subsequent trial in a successive comparison task favor the hypothesis that the elements in a pair are represented as a unit, and that a response is made to the perceptual unit. The patterns of responsetimes onsame anddifferent trials differed in-several ways; these suggested that the quality of the representations ofsame anddifferent trials may differ.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bertelson, P. (1965). Serial choice reaction time as a function of response versus signal-and-response repetition.Nature,206, 217–218.
Eriksen, C. W., &Schultz, D. W. (1979). Information processing in visual search: A continuous flow conception and experimental results.Perception & Psychophysics,25, 249–263.
Farell, B. (1985). “Same”-“different” judgments: A review of current controversies in perceptual comparisons.Psychological Bulletin,98, 419–456.
Felfoldy, G. L. (1974). Repetition effects in choice reaction time to multidimensional stimuli.Perception & Psychophysics,15, 453–459.
Garner, W. R. (1974).The processing of information and structure. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.
Garner, W. R. (1988). Facilitation and interference with a separable redundant dimension in stimulus comparison.Perception & Psychophysics,44, 321–330.
Kirby, N. (1980). Sequential effects in choice reaction time. In A. T. Welford (Ed.),Reaction times (pp. 129–172). London: Academic Press.
Kornblum, S. (1973). Sequential effects in choice reaction time: A tutorial review. In S. Kornblum (Ed.),Attention and performance IV (pp. 256–288). NY: Academic Press.
Kroll, N. E., &Ramskov, C. B. (1984). Visual memory as measured by classification and comparison tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,10, 395–420.
Krueger, L. E. (1973). Effects of stimulus frequency on speed of “same”-“different” judgments. In S. Kornblum (Ed.),Attention and performance IV (pp. 497–506). New York: Academic Press.
Krueger, L. E. (1978). Atheory of perceptual matching.Psychological Review,85, 278–304.
Krueger, L. E. (1983). Probing Proctor’s priming principle: The effect of simultaneous and sequential presentation on same-different judgments.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,9, 511–523.
Krueger, L. E., &Shapiro, R. G. (1981). Intertrial effects of samedifferent judgments.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,33A, 241–265.
Luce, R. D. (1986).Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organization. New York: Oxford University Press.
Luce, R. D., Nosofsky, R. M., Green, D. M., &Smith, A. F. (1982). The bow and sequential effects in absolute identification.Perception & Psychophysics,32, 397–408.
Neill, W. T., Lissner, L. S., &Beck, J. L. (1990). Negative priming in same-different matching: Further evidence for a central locus of inhibition.Perception & Psychophysics,48, 398–400.
Nickerson, R. S. (1972). Binary-classification reaction time: A review of some studies of human information-processing capabilities.Psychonomic Monograph Supplements,4(17, Whole No. 65), 275–317.
Nickerson, R. S. (1973). The use of binary-classification tasks in the study of human information processing: A tutorial survey. In S. Kornblum (Ed.),Attention and performance IV (pp. 449–475). New York: Academic Press.
Posner, M. I., Klein, R., Summers, J., &Buggle, S. (1973). On the selection of signals.Memory & Cognition,1, 2–12.
Proctor, R. W. (1981). A unified theory for matching-task phenomena.Psychological Review,88, 291–326.
Smith, A. F. (1986).Strategies and structure in selective attention tasks. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Yale University, New Haven, CT.
Smith, M. C. (1968). Repetition effect and short-term memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology,77, 435–439.
Walker, P., &Marshall, E. (1982). Visual memory and stimulus repetition effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,111, 348–368.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by BRSG Grant S07RR07149-13 from the Biomedical Research Support Grant Program, Division of Research Resources, National Institutes of Health, to the Research Foundation of the State University of New York at Binghamton. Preparation of the manuscript was facilitated by the Center for Cognitive and Psycholinguistic Sciences.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Li, X., Smith, A.F. Unitary classification in a comparison task. Perception & Psychophysics 51, 257–266 (1992). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212252
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212252