An examination of response bias in multiletter matching

When pairs of letters or letter strings are classified as “same” or “different,” correct “same” responses often are faster than correct “different” responses. Researchers have disagreed about the importance of this fast-same phenomenon, with some regarding it as indicative of a critical, basic characteristic of pattern recognition processes and others regarding it as a byproduct of response criteria. The present experiments examined this issue for multiletter matching. Two procedures were used, one in which response bias was manipulated by varying the proportion ofsame pairs and another in which string length effects were examined for a situation designed to minimize premature termination of the comparison process. The procedures provided converging results, indicating that, although the fast-same effect customarily obtained with simultaneous presentation of the pair of letter strings is likely due to response bias, the effect obtained with successive presentation is not. With successive presentation,same strings have a processing advantage overdifferent strings that apparently is due, at least in part, to facilitation in the encoding of the second string.

[1]  L. E. Krueger.  Probing Proctor's priming principle: the effect of simultaneous and sequential presentation on same-different judgments. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[2]  Donna P. Grill.  Variables influencing the mode of processing of complex stimuli , 1971 .

[3]  Lester E. Krueger,et al.  A reformulation of Proctor's unified theory for matching-task phenomena , 1981 .

[4]  W P Silverman,et al.  The perception of identity in simultaneously presented complex visual displays , 1973, Memory & cognition.

[5]  L. E. Krueger,et al.  Further evidence for priming in perceptual matching: Temporal, not spatial, separation enhances the fast-same effect , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

[6]  R. Proctor,et al.  Aparametric investigation of multiletter matches , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[7]  R. Ratcliff.  A theory of order relations in perceptual matching. , 1981 .

[8]  R. Nickerson.  Response Times for “Same”-“Different” Judgments , 1965, Perceptual and motor skills.

[9]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  On the misguided use of reaction-time differences: A reply to Proctor and Rao (1982) , 1982 .

[10]  Robert W. Proctor,et al.  A unified theory for matching-task phenomena. , 1981 .

[11]  Ronald G. Shapiro,et al.  Intertrial Effects of Same-Different Judgements , 1981 .

[12]  Stephen L. Goldberg,et al.  Further confirmation ofsame vs.different processing differences , 1975 .

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

[14]  Lester E. Krueger,et al.  Self-termination in same-different judgments: Multiletter comparison with simultaneous and sequential presentation. , 1984 .

[15]  D. Bamber.  Reaction times and error rates for “same”-“different” judgments of multidimensional stimull , 1969 .

[16]  Bruce D. Downing.  Response probabilities and “same-different” reaction times , 1971 .

[17]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Response competition effects insame-different judgments , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[18]  Max Coltheart,et al.  Short-term recognition memory for pitch: Effect of a priori probability on response times and error rates , 1968 .

[19]  W. Eichelman,et al.  Familiarity effects in the simultaneous matching task. , 1970 .

[20]  D. A. Taylor.  Effect of identity in the multiletter matching task. , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  R. Proctor,et al.  On the “misguided” use of reaction-time differences: A discussion of Ratcliff and Hacker (1981) , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[22]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Speed and accuracy of same and different responses in perceptual matching , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[23]  R. Proctor,et al.  Evidence that thesame-different disparity in letter matching is not attributable to response bias , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[24]  L Henderson,et al.  Visual comparison of words and random letter strings: Effects of number and position of letters different , 1975, Memory & cognition.