Bridge-Building: SFT Interrogation of Major Cognitive Phenomena

Abstract In early studies employing the SFT, the stimuli were simple visual signals, mainly dots, lines, or letters of the alphabet. Although this feature facilitated focusing on theory development, it has reduced the impact of SFT on mainstream cognitive science. The goal of this chapter is to reconnect the SFT to cognitive psychology via an SFT-guided examination of four major phenomena of current cognitive science: the Stroop and Garner effects in attention, the Size-Congruity effect in numerical cognition, and the Redundant-Target effect in speeded signal detection. We show that, in each case, the SFT analysis led to novel insights, reformulating old problems and challenging established theories.

[1]  W. R. Garner,et al.  The Stimulus in Information Processing , 1970 .

[2]  Mario Fific,et al.  Double jeopardy in inferring cognitive processes , 2014, Front. Psychol..

[3]  R. Melara,et al.  Selective attention to Stroop dimensions: Effects of baseline discriminability, response mode, and practice , 1993, Memory & cognition.

[4]  Daniel Algom,et al.  A system factorial technology analysis of the size congruity effect: Implications for numerical cognition and stochastic modeling , 2018, Journal of Mathematical Psychology.

[5]  J. R. Pomerantz.  Global and local precedence: selective attention in form and motion perception. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[6]  J. Miller,et al.  Multidimensional same--different judgments: evidence against independent comparisons of dimensions. , 1978, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  T. L. Brown.  The relationship between Stroop interference and facilitation effects: statistical artifacts, baselines, and a reassessment. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  W. R. Garner,et al.  Integrality of stimulus dimensions in various types of information processing , 1970 .

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

[10]  Daniel Fitousi.  On the internal representation of numerical magnitude and physical size. , 2014, Experimental psychology.

[11]  Ami Eidels,et al.  Independent race of colour and word can predict the Stroop effect , 2012 .

[12]  L. Jacoby,et al.  Stroop process dissociations: the relationship between facilitation and interference. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  J. Townsend.  SOME RESULTS CONCERNING THE IDENTIFIABILITY OF PARALLEL AND SERIAL PROCESSES , 1972 .

[14]  Anthea G. Blunden,et al.  Logical-rules and the classification of integral dimensions: individual differences in the processing of arbitrary dimensions , 2015, Front. Psychol..

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

[16]  Colin M. Macleod,et al.  The stroop task : the «Gold Standard» of attentional measures , 1992 .

[17]  J. Stroop.  Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. , 1992 .

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

[19]  D. Algom,et al.  Driven by information: a tectonic theory of Stroop effects. , 2003, Psychological review.

[20]  Daniel R. Little,et al.  Logical rules and the classification of integral-dimension stimuli. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[21]  M I Posner,et al.  Chronometric analysis of classification. , 1967, Psychological review.

[22]  Daniel Fitousi.  Dissociating between cardinal and ordinal and between the value and size magnitudes of coins , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[24]  M. Posner.  Chronometric explorations of mind : the third Paul M. Fitts lectures, delivered at the University of Michigan, September 1976 , 1978 .

[25]  D. Algom,et al.  Size congruity effects with two-digit numbers: Expanding the number line? , 2006, Memory & cognition.

[26]  Samuel Shaki,et al.  The role of parity, physical size, and magnitude in numerical cognition: The SNARC effect revisited , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[27]  W. R. Garner.  The Processing of Information and Structure , 1974 .

[28]  W. R. Garner,et al.  Interaction of stimulus dimensions in concept and choice processes , 1976, Cognitive Psychology.

[29]  S. Dehaene,et al.  The Number Sense: How the Mind Creates Mathematics. , 1998 .

[30]  James T. Townsend,et al.  Comparing perception of Stroop stimuli in focused versus divided attention paradigms: Evidence for dramatic processing differences , 2010, Cognition.

[31]  Derek Besner,et al.  Ideographic and alphabetic processing in skilled reading of English , 1979, Neuropsychologia.

[32]  Daniel Algom,et al.  The stroop effect: It is not the robust phenomenon that you have thought it to be , 2000, Memory & cognition.

[33]  Ami Eidels,et al.  Depth of processing in the stroop task: evidence from a novel forced-reading condition. , 2014, Experimental psychology.

[34]  D. Algom,et al.  The perception of number from the separability of the stimulus: The Stroop effect revisited , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[35]  J. Tzelgov,et al.  Expanding on the mental number line: zero is perceived as the "smallest". , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[36]  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.

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

[38]  Michal Pinhas,et al.  Zooming in and out from the mental number line: evidence for a number range effect. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

[40]  Daniel Algom,et al.  Comparative judgment of numerosity and numerical magnitude: attention preempts automaticity. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[41]  Daniel R. Little,et al.  Short-term memory scanning viewed as exemplar-based categorization. , 2011, Psychological review.

[42]  D. Algom,et al.  Stroop and Garner effects in comparative judgment of numerals: The role of attention. , 1999 .

[43]  James T. Townsend,et al.  A note on the identifiability of parallel and serial processes , 1971 .

[44]  Colin M. Macleod,et al.  Interdimensional interference in the Stroop effect: uncovering the cognitive and neural anatomy of attention , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[45]  Dana Ganor-Stern,et al.  The Representation of Negative Numbers: Exploring the Effects of Mode of Processing and Notation , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[46]  Boaz M Ben-David,et al.  Species of redundancy in visual target detection. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[47]  A memory-based account of automatic numerosity processing , 2005, Memory & cognition.

[48]  Tony Wang,et al.  Understanding the influence of distractors on workload capacity , 2015 .

[49]  Colin M. Macleod.  Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: an integrative review. , 1991, Psychological bulletin.

[50]  Charles W. Eriksen,et al.  Processing redundant signals: Coactivation, divided attention, or what? , 1989, Perception & psychophysics.

[51]  Anthea G. Blunden,et al.  Logical-Rule Based Models of Categorization: Using Systems Factorial Technology to Understand Feature and Dimensional Processing , 2017 .

[52]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Coactivation in the perception of redundant targets. , 1990, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.

[53]  Daniel R. Little,et al.  Logical-rule models of classification response times: a synthesis of mental-architecture, random-walk, and decision-bound approaches. , 2010, Psychological review.

[54]  Daniel Algom,et al.  Half a century of research on Garner interference and the separability-integrality distinction. , 2016, Psychological bulletin.

[55]  D. Cohen.  Visual detection and perceptual independence: Assessing color and form , 1997, Perception & psychophysics.

[56]  Hedderik eVan Rijn.  It's time to take the psychology of biological time into account: speed of driving affects a trip's subjective duration. , 2014 .

[57]  Daniel R. Little,et al.  Response-time tests of logical-rule models of categorization. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[58]  J. Tzelgov,et al.  Exploring the mental number line via the size congruity effect. , 2010, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[59]  James T Townsend,et al.  Information-processing alternatives to holistic perception: identifying the mechanisms of secondary-level holism within a categorization paradigm. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[60]  A. Henik,et al.  Is three greater than five: The relation between physical and semantic size in comparison tasks , 1982, Memory & cognition.

[61]  W. Uttal.  The New Phrenology: The Limits of Localizing Cognitive Processes in the Brain , 2001 .

[62]  Mario Fific,et al.  EMERGING HOLISTIC PROPERTIES AT FACE VALUE: ASSESSING CHARACTERISTICS OF FACE PERCEPTION , 2010 .

[63]  D. Algom,et al.  A confluence of contexts: asymmetric versus global failures of selective attention to stroop dimensions. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[64]  Daniel Fitousi.  Composite faces are not processed holistically: evidence from the Garner and redundant target paradigms , 2015, Attention, perception & psychophysics.