Abstract
To assess conflicting results of prior studies concerned with the effects of familiarity and task conditions on the performance of visual matching tasks, six groups of independent observers (N = 8) each received three blocked trials of 12 “same” and 12 “different” pairs (randomly ordered) of letters, rotated letters, or nonsense forms presented simultaneously or successively in a tachistoscope. Each observer was asked to judge whether the elements of each pair were “same” or “different.” Analysis of the RTs showed that judgments of the nonsense forms were slower than the equally fast responses to the letters and rotated letters. An interaction between presentation mode and type of stimulus pair indicated that judgments of “same” pairs were somewhat faster with successive than with simultaneous presentation, but “different” pairs were judged equally fast under both modes. The results are related to earlier studies of familiarity, but emphasis is placed on a facilitation hypothesis based on meaningfulness.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ambler, B. A., & Proctor, J. D. The familiarity effect for single-letter pairs. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1976, 2, 222–234.
Egeth, H., & Blecker, D. Differential effects of familiarity on judgments of sameness and difference. Perception & Psychophysics, 1971, 9, 321–326.
Hebb, D. O. Textbook of psychology (3rd ed.). Philadelphia: Saunders, 1972.
Hochberg, J. In the mind’s eye. In R. N. Haber (Ed.), Contemporary theory and research in visual perception. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1968.
Hock, H. S. The effects of stimulus structure and familiarity on same-different comparisons. Perception & Psychophysics, 1973, 14, 413–420.
Krueger, L. E. Effect of letter-pair frequency and orientation of speed of “same”-“different” judgments by children and adults. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1973, 2, 431–433.
Krueger, L. E. Familiarity effects in visual information processing. Psychological Bulletin, 1975, 82, 949–974.
Noble, C. E. Meaningfulness and familiarity. In C. N. Cofer & B. S. Musgrave (Eds.), Verbal behavior and learning: Problems and processes. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963.
Posner, M. I., & Mitchell, R. F. Chronometric analysis of classification. Psychological Review, 1967, 74, 392–409.
Robinson, J. S. Familiar patterns are no easier to see than novel ones. American Journal of Psychology, 1969, 82, 513–522.
Townsend, J. T. Theoretical analysis of an alphabetic confusion matrix. Perception & Psychophysics, 1971, 9, 40–50.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was conducted by the first author in partial fulfillment of the master’s degree under the supervision of the second author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Young, C.I., Hodge, M.H. Familiarity effects in a same-different task with simultaneous and successive presentation. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 16, 461–464 (1980). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03329599
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03329599