Three experiments were conducted to examine the influence of non-target letters on target detection performance. It was hypothesised that letters which are similar would exert a stronger masking influence on each other than letters which have a low level of feature similarity. The results indicate, however, that every letter has the same inhibitory potential regardless of its similarity rating to other letters. The highly significant letter interactions which did occur in the study were interpreted as evidence for an additive, rather than a subtractive, influence by the non-targets. It is proposed that when a target has an ambiguous identity, due to an impoverished representation, it may be disambiguated by the addition of feature information from the immediate letter context. The effect of filling in the target representation with a feature value from a non-target letter will be to weight the final representation towards the target which has the value most similar to the one substituted. In a sense, then, non-targets which are similar to a target can actually enhance target detection scores.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BjorkE. L.MurrayJ. T. (1977). On the nature of input channels in visual processing.Psychological Review84, 472–84.
2.
BoxG. E. P. (1953). Non-normality and tests on variances.Biometrika40, 318–35.
3.
EriksenB. A.EriksenC. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task.Perception and Psychophysics16, 143–9.
4.
EriksenC. E.EriksenB. A. (1979). Target redundancy in visual search: Do repetitions of the target within the display impair processing?Perception and Psychophysics26, 195–205.
5.
EriksenC. W.SchultzD. W. (1979). Information processing in visual search: A continuous flow conception and experimental results.Perception and Psychophysics25, 249–63.
6.
EstesW. K. (1972). Interactions of signal and background variables in visual processing.Perception and Psychophysics12, 278–86.
7.
EstesW. K. (1974). Redundancy of noise elements and signals in visual detections of letters.Perception and Psychophysics16, 53–60.
8.
EstesW. K. (1975). Memory, perception, and decision in letter identification. In SolsoR. L. (Ed.), Information Processing and Cognition: The Loyola SymposiumWashington, D.C.: Erlbaum.
9.
EstesW. K. (1978). Perceptual processing in letter recognition and reading. In CarteretteE. C.FriedmanM. P. (Eds), Handbook of Perception, Vol. 9.New York: Academic Press.
10.
EstesW. K.WolfordG. L. (1971). Effects of spaces on report from tachistoscopically presented letter strings.Psychonomic Science25, 77–80.
11.
GardnerG. T. (1973). Evidence for independent parallel channels in tachistoscopic perception.Cognitive Psychology4, 130–55.
12.
GeyerL. H.DeWaldC. G. (1973). Feature lists and confusion matrices.Perception and Psychophysics14, 471–82.
13.
GibsonE. (1969). Principles of Perceptual Learning and DevelopmentNew York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
14.
GilmoreG. C.EgethH. E. (1976). When are non-words easy to see?Perception and Psychophysics4, 519–24.
15.
GilmoreG. C.HershH.CaramazzaA.GriffinJ. (1979). Multidimensional letter similarity derived from recognition errors.Perception and Psychophysics25, 425–31.
16.
JohnsonN. F. (1975). On the function of letters in word identification: Some data and a preliminary model.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior14, 17–29.
17.
McIntyreG.FoxR.NealeJ. (1970). Effects of noise similarity and redundancy on the information processed from brief visual displays.Perception and Psychophysics7, 328–32.
18.
RabbittP. M. A. (1967). Ignoring irrelevant information.American Journal of Psychology80, 1–13.
19.
RabbittP. M. A.CummingG.VyasS. (1979). Improvement, learning and retention of skill at visual search.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology32, 441–59.
20.
RumelhartD. E. (1970). A multicomponent theory of the perception of briefly presented displays.Journal of Mathematical Psychology7, 191–218.
21.
ShawP. (1969). Processing of tachistoscopic displays with controlled order of characters and spaces.Perception and Psychophysics6, 257–66.
22.
ShiffrinR. M.GardnerG. T. (1972). Visual processing capacity and attentional control.Journal of Experimental Psychology93, 72–82.
23.
ShiffrinR. M.GeislerW. S. (1973). Visual recognition in a theory of information processing. Indiana Mathematical Psychology Program Report, No. 72–10Indiana University.
24.
SternbergS. (1967). Two operations in character recognition: Some evidence from reaction time measurements.Perception and Psychophysics2, 45–53.
25.
TownsendJ. T. (1971a). Theoretical analysis of an alphabetic confusion matrix.Perception and Psychophysics9, 40–50.
26.
TownsendJ. T. (1971b). Alphabetic confusion: A test of models for individuals.Perception and Psychophysics9, 449–54.
27.
TownsendJ. T.TaylorS. G.BrownD. R. (1971). Lateral masking for letters with unlimited viewing time.Perception and Psychophysics10, 375–8.
28.
TreismanA. M. (1977). Focused attention in the perception and retrieval of multidimensional stimuli.Perception and Psychophysics22, 1–11.
29.
TreismanA. M.GeladeG. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention.Cognitive Psychology12, 97–136.
30.
WeissteinN. (1968). A Rashevsky-Landahl neural net: Simulation of metacontrast.Psychological Review75, 494–521.
31.
WolfordG. (1975). The perturbation model for letter identification.Psychological Review82, 184–99.
32.
WolfordG.HollingsworthS. (1974a). Lateral masking in visual information processing.Perception and Psychophysics16, 315–320.
33.
WolfordG.HollingsworthS. (1974b). Retinal location and string position as important variables in visual information processing.Perception and Psychophysics16, 437–42.
34.
WolfordG.HollingsworthS. (1974c). Redundancy in the full-report procedure.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society3, 457–8.
35.
YoungF. W.TorgersonW. S. (1967). TORSCA, A FORTRAN IV program for Shepard-Kruskal multidimensional scaling analysis.Behavioral Science12, 498.
