Circle size and diameter tilt: A new look at integrality and separability

In six experiments using the speeded classification paradigm, we provide evidence that the ostensibly “separable” dimensions of size and orientation can produce patterns of either separability or asymmetric configurality, depending on the spatial arrangement of the stimuli. In all experiments, subjects classified large or small circles contairting a single line in one of two possible orientations. When the line touched the circle’s perimeter, thereby defining the diameter of the circle (Experiments 1–4), asymmetric configurality obtained: Variations in size interfered with classification by orientation, but variations in orientation did not interfere with classification by size, and redundancy gain was weak or absent. When the lines fell completely within (i.e., did not touch) the circles (Experiments 5 and 6), the results were consistent with separability: There was neither redundancy gain nor interference. Taken together, the results add to the growing body of evidence that classification of specific dimensional pairs as separable or integral may be less feasible than identifying the more general conditions that increase or decrease the psychological salience of dimensional structures and facilitate or interfere with selection of optimal processing strategies.

[1]  W. R. Garner,et al.  DISCRIMINABILITY AND PREFERENCE FOR ATTRIBUTES IN FREE AND CONSTRAINED CLASSIFICATION. , 1965, Journal of experimental psychology.

[2]  J. D. Smith,et al.  Individual differences in the classification of stimuli by dimensions. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  A continuum of dimensional separability , 1979, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  Lawrence C. Sager,et al.  Perception of wholes and of their component parts: some configural superiority effects. , 1977, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

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

[7]  Linda B. Smith,et al.  Levels of experienced dimensionality in children and adults , 1978, Cognitive Psychology.

[8]  James T. Townsend,et al.  On the Need for A General Quantitative Theory of Pattern Similarity , 1993 .

[9]  James R. Pomerantz,et al.  Attention and object perception. , 1989 .

[10]  D. G. Kemler,et al.  Exploring and reexploring issues of integrality, perceptual sensitivity, and dimensional salience. , 1983, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[11]  J. R. Pomerantz,et al.  Grouping by proximity: Selective attention measures , 1975 .

[12]  R. Shepard Attention and the metric structure of the stimulus space. , 1964 .

[13]  L. Smith,et al.  Accessing similarity and dimensional relations: effects of integrality and separability on the discovery of complex concepts. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[14]  R. Hyman,et al.  Judgments of similarity and spatial models , 1967 .

[15]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  Predicting similarity and categorization from identification. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[16]  J. R. Pomerantz,et al.  Emergent features, attention, and perceptual glue in visual form perception. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  W. T. Maddox,et al.  A response time theory of separability and integrality in speeded classification , 1994 .

[18]  N. Perrin,et al.  Varieties of perceptual independence. , 1986, Psychological review.

[19]  L M Ward,et al.  Determinants of attention to local and global features of visual forms. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[20]  L E Marks,et al.  Perceptual primacy of dimensions: support for a model of dimensional interaction. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[21]  C. F. Foard,et al.  Holistic and analytic modes of processing: the multiple determinants of perceptual analysis. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[22]  Bryan E. Shepp On perceiving objects: Holistic versus featural properties. , 1989 .

[23]  W. R. Garner,et al.  The effects on speeded classification of implicit and explicit instructions regarding redundant dimensions , 1971 .

[24]  Ray Hyman,et al.  Perceptual separability and spatial models , 1968 .

[25]  James R. Pomerantz,et al.  Stimules configuration in selective attention tasks , 1973 .

[26]  L. Marks,et al.  Primacy of dimensions in color perception. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  Ashby Fg,et al.  Integrating information from separable psychological dimensions. , 1990 .

[28]  T. B. Ward Individual differences in processing stimulus dimensions: Relation to selective processing abilities , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[29]  H. Huynh,et al.  Estimation of the Box Correction for Degrees of Freedom from Sample Data in Randomized Block and Split-Plot Designs , 1976 .

[30]  G. Lockhead Effects of dimensional redundancy on visual discrimination. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

[31]  G R Lockhead,et al.  Classifying intergral stimuli. , 1977, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

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