Neisser (1967) posits the operation of purely feature analytic processes in the scanning of context letters in search lists. This contention was tested by varying the relative frequency of occurrence in English of the context letters in alphanumeric search lists, while holding their feature content constant. It was hypothesized that faster search time on lists of high-frequency context letters would indicate letter-level processing. Equality of search time would indicate the purely feature-level processing required by Neisser's theory.
Context letters were segregated into high- and low-frequency sets and their features defined and held constant according to two feature analyses. This yielded a 2 × 2 design with 22 subjects per condition. Attention was given to the control of feature frequency, size of the context-letter set, and approximation of English at the level of bigram, trigram, and word. Results supported a letter level or template model of processing but were shown also to be explainable in terms of some feature-testing models of pattern recognition. Apparatus which allowed for the removal of reaction time in search lists is described.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BradshawJ. L.FergusonB., 1969, “Frequency effects and semantic and acoustic recoding in list searching”, Nature, 224, 726–728
2.
BrydenM.P., 1968, “Symmetry of letters as a factor in tachistoscopic recognition”, Am. J. Psychol., 81, 513–524
DeweyG., 1950, Relative frequency of English speech sounds. Revised Edition (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass.)
6.
EagleM. N.HillA. L., 1969, “Do disappearance patterns in low illumination constitute a perceptual phenomenon or a response artefact?”, Nature, 224, 882
7.
EgethH. E., 1966, “Parallel versus serial processes in multidimensional stimulus discrimination”, Perception and Psychophysics, 1, 245–252
8.
FisherD. F.MontyR. A.GlucksbergS., 1969, “Visual confusion matrices: Fact or artefact?”, J. Psychol., 71, 111–125
9.
FittsP. M.SwitzerG., 1962, “Cognitive aspects of information processing: 1, the familiarity of S–R sets and subsets”, J. exp. Psychol., 63, 321–329
10.
FooteW. E.HavensL. L., 1967, “Differential effects of stimulus frequency and graphic configuration in free- and forced-choice experiments”, J. exp. Psychol., 73, 340–346
GibsonE. J.OsserH.SchiffW.SmithJ., 1963, “An analysis of the critical features of letters tested by a confusion matrix”. Final Report on Co-operative Research Project, 639 (US Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Office of Education)
13.
GibsonE. J.YonasA., 1966, “A development study of visual search behavior”, Perception and Psychophysics, 1, 169–171
14.
GordonI. E., 1968, “Interactions between items in visual search”, J. exp. Psychol., 76, 348–355
15.
HavensL. L.FooteW. E., 1964, “Structural features of competitive responses”, Percept. Mot. Skills, 19, 75–80
16.
HeckenmuellerE. G., 1965, “Stabilization of the retinal image: A review of method, effects and theory”, Psychol. Bull., 63, 157–169
17.
HickW. E., 1952, “On the rate of gain of information”, Q. Jl exp. Psychol., 4, 11–26
18.
HowellW. C.KraftC. L., 1959, “Size, blur and contrast as variables affecting the legibility of alpha-numeric symbols”, W.A.D.C. Technical Report TE-59-536 (U.S. Air Force)
19.
HubelD. H.WieselT. N., 1962, “Receptive fields, binocular interaction and functional architecture in the cat's visual cortex”, J. Physiol., 160, 106–154
20.
KaplanG.YonasA.ShurcliffA., 1966b, “Visual and acoustic confusability in a visual search task”, Perception and Psychophysics, 1, 172–174
21.
KaplanI. T.CarvellasT.MetlayW., 1966a, “Visual search and immediate memory”, J. exp. Psychol., 71, 488–493
22.
LehtiöP. K., 1970, “The organization of component decisions in visual search”, in Attention and Performance II, Ed. A. F. Sanders, Acta psychol., 33, 93–105
23.
McFarlandJ. H., 1968, “‘Parts’ of perceived visual forms: New evidence”, Perception and Psychophysics, 3, 118–120
24.
MillerG. A.BrunerJ. S.PostmanL., 1954, “Familiarity of letter sequences and tachistoscopic identification”, J. gen. Psychol., 50, 129–139
25.
NeisserU., 1963, “Decision time without reaction time: Experiments in visual scanning”, Am. J. Psychol., 76, 376–385
26.
NeisserU., 1967, Cognitive Psychology (Appleton Century Crofts, New York)
27.
NickersonR. S., 1967b, “‘Same–different’ response times with multi-attribute stimulus differences”, Percept. Mot. Skills, 24, 543–554
28.
NickersonR. S., 1967b, “‘Same different’ response times with multi-attribute stimulus differences”, Percept. Mot. Skills, 24, 543–554
29.
PickA. D., 1965, “Improvement of visual and tactual form discrimination”, J. exp. Psychol., 69, 331–339
30.
RochesterN.JohnsonJ. R.AmdahlG. M.MutterW. E., 1959, Recognition of recorded intelligence. U.S. Patent 2889535; filed 20 October 1955 issued 2 June 1959
31.
ShurtleffD. A.MarsettaM. Y., 1968, “Visual search in a letter-cancelling task re-examined”, J. exp. Psychol., 77, 19–23
32.
SmithE. E., 1968, “Choice reaction time: An analysis of the major positions”, Psychol. Bull., 69, 77–110
33.
SternbergS., 1967, “Two operations in character recognition: Some evidence from reaction-time measurements”, Perception and Psychophysics, 2, 45–53
34.
StevensM. E., 1961, “Automatic character recognition—a state of the art report”. Technical Note 112, PB 161613 (U.S. Department of Commerce, National Bureau of Standards, Washington D.C.)
35.
StrongmanK. T.BrownR., 1966, “Visual search with meaningful and non-meaningful material”, Q. Jl exp. Psychol., 18, 164–168
36.
SutherlandN. S., 1959, “Stimulus analyzing mechanisms”, in Proceedings of the Symposium on Mechanisation of Thought Processes, National Physical Laboratory, London, Eds. UttleyA. M.BlakeD. V. (HMSO, London), pp. 575–609
37.
UhrL.VosslerC., 1961, “A pattern-recognition program that generates, evaluates and adjusts its own operators”, in Proc. west. jt Computer Conf., 19, 555–569
38.
UnderwoodB. J.SchulzR. W., 1960, Meaningfulness and Verbal Learning (Lippincott, Chicago)
