Abstract
Ss shadowed a prose passage delivered to the right ear and were asked to tap to occurrences of a target in a second passage delivered to the left ear. Group 1 was asked to tap to a sound that could also be two different words (e.g., I and eye), Group 2 to one of these words only. Group 2 performed better than Group 1, reversing the result of Wilding & Underwood (1968). The result is attributed to availability of contextual information for Group 2; arguments of Treisman & Geffen (1967) against such availability are rejected.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
DEUTSCH, J. A., & DEUTSCH, D. Attention: Some theoretical considerations. Psychological Review, 1963, 70, 80–90.
LAWSON, E. A. Decisions concerning the rejected channel. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966, 18, 260–265.
Treisman, A. M. Selective attention in man. British Medical Bulletin, 1964, 20, 12–16.
TREISMAN, A. M. Human attention. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), New horizons in psychology. London: Penguin, 1966. Pp. 97–117.
TREISMAN, A. M., & GEFFEN, G. Selective attention: Perception or response? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1967, 19, 1–17.
WILDING, J. M., & UNDERWOOD, G. Selective attention: The site of the filter in the identification of language. Psychonomic Science, 1968, 13, 305–306.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wilding, J.M., Farrell, J.M. Selective attention: Superior detection of word targets compared with sound targets in a prose passage while shadowing another passage. Psychon Sci 19, 123–124 (1970). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03337453
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03337453