Relative change probability affects the decision process of detecting multiple feature changes.

Change in a real world setting usually consists of multiple feature changes, and one feature may change more often than another. This study manipulated the number of changes in orientation and spatial frequency to examine the effect of the relative change probability on the comparison and decision processes in a change detection task. Results showed that when two types of features changed equally often (Experiment 1), parallel self-terminating processing was adopted. When frequency changed more often than orientation (Experiment 2), serial self-terminating processing was adopted. However, when there was a lack of cognitive resources (Experiment 3), parallel self-terminating processing was adopted even when relative saliency existed. In all three experiments, the process capacity ranged from limited to unlimited. In addition, the participants reported that they were not aware of their use of change probability information, thus, providing evidence of implicit learning of change probability. These results support the relative saliency hypothesis: relative change probability affects the relative salience between features and, consequently, influences the adoption of decision strategies. Furthermore, the results highlight that perceptual comparison and decision processes are flexible and can vary depending on the relative saliency and resources available for information processing.

[1]  Michael J Wenger,et al.  A strong test of the dual-mode hypothesis , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[2]  T. Zandt,et al.  How to fit a response time distribution , 2000, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[3]  J. H. Flowers,et al.  Intentional versus unintentional use of contingencies between perceptual events , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  J. Townsend,et al.  Stochastic dependencies in parallel and serial models: effects on systems factorial interactions , 1994 .

[5]  Joo-Hyun Song,et al.  Spatial context learning in visual search and change detection , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[6]  Melissa R. Beck,et al.  Knowledge about the probability of change affects change detection performance. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  W Schwarz,et al.  A new model to explain the redundant-signals effect , 1989, Perception & psychophysics.

[8]  R. Schweickert,et al.  Selective Influence and Response Time Cumulative Distribution Functions in Serial-Parallel Task Networks. , 2000, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[9]  D. Raab.  DIVISION OF PSYCHOLOGY: STATISTICAL FACILITATION OF SIMPLE REACTION TIMES* , 1962 .

[10]  M. Chun,et al.  Memory deficits for implicit contextual information in amnesic subjects with hippocampal damage , 1999, Nature Neuroscience.

[11]  Eric J. Johnson,et al.  Behavioral decision research: A constructive processing perspective. , 1992 .

[12]  I H Bernstein,et al.  Energy integration in intersensory facilitation. , 1970, Journal of experimental psychology.

[13]  J. Townsend,et al.  Spatio-temporal properties of elementary perception: an investigation of parallel, serial, and coactive theories , 1995 .

[14]  H. Colonius.  Possibly dependent probability summation of reaction time , 1990 .

[15]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[16]  B. Knowlton,et al.  Remembering episodes: a selective role for the hippocampus during retrieval , 2000, Nature Neuroscience.

[17]  E. Dzhafarov.  Unconditionally Selective Dependence of Random Variables on External Factors. , 2001, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[18]  Joseph W. Houpt,et al.  Nice Guys Finish Fast and Bad Guys Finish Last: Facilitatory vs. Inhibitory Interaction in Parallel Systems. , 2011, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[19]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Tests of Race Models for Reaction Time in Experiments with Asynchronous Redundant Signals , 1997, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[20]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  Information-processing architectures in multidimensional classification: a validation test of the systems factorial technology. , 2008, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  G R Grice,et al.  Combination rule for redundant information in reaction time tasks with divided attention , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

[22]  R S Nickerson,et al.  Intersensory facilitation of reaction time: energy summation or preparation enhancement? , 1973, Psychological review.

[23]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Functional Mapping of Sequence Learning in Normal Humans , 1995, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[24]  A. Dickinson,et al.  Instrumental judgment and performance under variations in action-outcome contingency and contiguity , 1991, Memory & cognition.

[25]  M. Gluck,et al.  Interactive memory systems in the human brain , 2001, Nature.

[26]  H. Müller,et al.  The detection of feature singletons defined in two dimensions is based on salience summation, rather than on serial exhaustive or interactive race architectures , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[27]  B. Gibson,et al.  Using hazard functions to assess changes in processing capacity in an attentional cuing paradigm. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[28]  Scott P. Johnson,et al.  Visual statistical learning in infancy: evidence for a domain general learning mechanism , 2002, Cognition.

[29]  Melissa R. Beck,et al.  The change probability effect: Incidental learning, adaptability, and shared visual working memory resources , 2011, Consciousness and Cognition.

[30]  M. Chun,et al.  Contextual Cueing: Implicit Learning and Memory of Visual Context Guides Spatial Attention , 1998, Cognitive Psychology.

[31]  Melissa R. Beck,et al.  Implicit learning for probable changes in a visual change detection task , 2008, Consciousness and Cognition.

[32]  W. Schwarz,et al.  Diffusion, superposition, and the redundant-targets effect , 1994 .

[33]  C W Tyler,et al.  The Morphonome image psychophysics software and a calibrator for Macintosh systems. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[34]  J. Townsend.  Serial vs. Parallel Processing: Sometimes They Look like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but they can (and Should) be Distinguished , 1990 .

[35]  L. Reder,et al.  What affects strategy selection in arithmetic? The example of parity and five effects on product verification , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[36]  Saul Sternberg,et al.  The discovery of processing stages: Extensions of Donders' method , 1969 .

[37]  M. Manosevitz.  High-Speed Scanning in Human Memory , .

[38]  D. Raab.  Statistical facilitation of simple reaction times. , 1962, Transactions of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[39]  Cheng-Ta Yang,et al.  Relative saliency in change signals affects perceptual comparison and decision processes in change detection. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[40]  B. Hommel,et al.  Contiguity and contingency in action-effect learning , 2004, Psychological research.

[41]  G R Grice,et al.  Absence of a redundant-signals effect in a reaction time task with divided attention , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

[42]  Mario Fifić,et al.  Parallel versus serial processing and individual differences in high-speed search in human memory , 2004, Perception & psychophysics.

[43]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[44]  S. Yantis,et al.  An interactive race model of divided attention. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[45]  J. Shanteau.  Psychological characteristics and strategies of expert decision makers , 1988 .

[46]  J. Townsend,et al.  Self-terminating versus exhaustive processes in rapid visual and memory search: An evaluative review , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[47]  Melissa R. Beck,et al.  The roles of encoding, retrieval, and awareness , 2007, Memory & cognition.

[48]  J T Townsend.  A clarification of self-terminating versus exhaustive variances in serial and parallel models , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[49]  J. Townsend,et al.  Workload capacity spaces: A unified methodology for response time measures of efficiency as workload is varied , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[50]  R. Aslin,et al.  Encoding multielement scenes: statistical learning of visual feature hierarchies. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[51]  Cheng-Ta Yang,et al.  Relative salience affects the process of detecting changes in orientation and luminance. , 2011, Acta psychologica.

[52]  J. Kujala,et al.  Testing for selectivity in the dependence of random variables on external factors , 2008 .

[53]  A. Dickinson,et al.  Contingency Effects with Maintained Instrumental Reinforcement , 1985 .

[54]  Dzhafarov.  Conditionally Selective Dependence of Random Variables on External Factors. , 1999, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[55]  J. Townsend,et al.  NIH Public Access Author Manuscript , 2006 .

[56]  James T. Townsend,et al.  The Stochastic Modeling of Elementary Psychological Processes , 1983 .