Evidence for feature perturbations

Feature perturbations were proposed by Wolford (1975) to explain the pattern of errors generated by subjects in experiments involving speeded presentations. These experiments were carried out to test the notion of feature perturbations in a fairly direct fashion. The logic of the experiments involved the creation of an artificial alphabet in which feature perturbations, if they occurred, would lead to predictable error patterns. The results of the three experiments supported the notion of feature perturbations. Evidence was also found for errors which resulted from items that were correctly identified but that were reported in an incorrect order. These latter errors were shown to be distinct from errors resulting from feature perturbations.

[1]  M L Matthews,et al.  Locus of presentation and the selective masking effect. , 1973, Canadian journal of psychology.

[2]  Elizabeth L Bjork,et al.  On the nature of input channels in visual processing. , 1977, Psychological review.

[3]  George Wolford,et al.  Retinal location and string position as important variables in visual information processing , 1974 .

[4]  L. E. Krueger.  A Theory of Perceptual Matching , 1978 .

[5]  B. J. Winer.  Statistical Principles in Experimental Design , 1992 .

[6]  William Prinzmetal,et al.  Configurational effects in visual information processing , 1976 .

[7]  H. Bouma.  Visual interference in the parafoveal recognition of initial and final letters of words. , 1973, Vision research.

[8]  G. Wolford,et al.  Evidence that short-term memory is not the limiting factor in the tachistoscopic full-report procedure , 1974, Memory & cognition.

[9]  George Wolford,et al.  Lateral masking in visual information processing , 1974 .

[10]  W. Estes,et al.  Serial position functions for letter identification at brief and extended exposure durations , 1976 .

[11]  G Wolford,et al.  Perturbation model for letter identification. , 1975, Psychological review.

[12]  Charles W. Eriksen,et al.  Retinal locus and acuity in visual information processing , 1977 .

[13]  D. Broadbent.  The hidden preattentive processes. , 1977, The American psychologist.

[14]  G. T. Gardner.  Evidence for independent parallel channels in tachistoscopic perception , 1973 .

[15]  M. Shaw.  Reaction time in reading a tachistoscopic display for a memory set item , 1977 .

[16]  Charles W. Eriksen,et al.  The perception of multiple simultaneously presented forms as a function of foveal spacing , 1967 .

[17]  W. Estes,et al.  Effects of spaces on report from tachistoscopically presented letter strings , 1971 .

[18]  William K. Estes,et al.  Interactions of signal and background variables in visual processing , 1972 .

[19]  Wilson S. Geisler,et al.  Visual recognition in a theory of information processing. , 1973 .

[20]  Carol L. Krumhansl,et al.  Effect of level of confusability on reporting letters from briefly presented visual displays , 1977 .

[21]  William P. Banks,et al.  The asymmetry of lateral interference in visual letter identification , 1977 .

[22]  R. A. Kinchla,et al.  The role of structural redundancy in the perception of visual targets , 1977 .

[23]  P. A. Kolers,et al.  On visual masking (metacontrast): dichoptic observation. , 1960, The American journal of psychology.

[24]  N. Mackworth.  Visual noise causes tunnel vision , 1965 .

[25]  S Coffin,et al.  Spatial frequency analysis of block letters does not predict experimental confusions , 1978, Perception & psychophysics.

[26]  W K Estes,et al.  A DETECTION METHOD AND PROBABILISTIC MODELS FOR ASSESSING INFORMATION PROCESSING FROM BRIEF VISUAL DISPLAYS , 1964 .

[27]  D. R. Brown,et al.  Lateral visual masking: Supraretinal effects when viewing linear arrays with unlimited viewing time , 1972 .