On the nature of input channels in visual processing.

The research reported herein was designed to assess whether the presence of noise elements in a visual display affects the detection of target letters at the perceptual or feature extraction level of processing, as well as at the decision level, and more specifically, whether (a) input or processing channels operate in an independent or interactive fashion and (b) how the spatial relation between signal and noise items affects detection performance. In order to distinguish among current theories proposed to account for the influence of noise items on visual processing, a forced-choice detection task was modified to incorporate a cueing procedure, which permitted the independent variation of signal-noise similarity, confusability, and proximity. The results provide evidence for feature-specific inhibition at the perceptual level, and a theory is proposed that assumes hierarchically organized, limited-capacity feature detectors and feature-specific inhibitory channels. There is now considerable evidence that the detectability of a designated signal is impaired by the presence of noise elements in the same visual display. The degree of impairment has been shown to vary as a function of the confusability of noise elements with the set of alternative targets (Estes, 1972; Gardner, 1973; Mclntyre, Fox, & Neale, 1970) and the spatial proximity of target and noise (Strangert & Brannstrom, 1975; Wolford & Rollingsworth, 1974). However, whether the effects of signal-noise similarity on target detection might be different than the effects of signalnoise confusability and how either of these variables might interact with signal-noise proximity has not been established; nor is it clear at what level of processing noise items impair the visual detection of signals. Evidence Edward E. Smith acted as Guest Editor for this article. The research reported was supported by Grant

[1]  Charles Curtis Eriksen,et al.  The extent of processing of noise elements during selective encoding from visual displays , 1973 .

[2]  D. Hubel,et al.  Receptive fields and functional architecture of monkey striate cortex , 1968, The Journal of physiology.

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

[4]  William K. Estes,et al.  Redundancy of noise elements and signals in visual detection of letters , 1974 .

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

[6]  Bo Strangert,et al.  Spatial interaction effects in letter processing , 1975 .

[7]  D H HUBEL,et al.  RECEPTIVE FIELDS AND FUNCTIONAL ARCHITECTURE IN TWO NONSTRIATE VISUAL AREAS (18 AND 19) OF THE CAT. , 1965, Journal of neurophysiology.

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

[9]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Rate of information processing in visual perception: some results and methodological considerations. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[10]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Temporal and spatial characteristics of selective encoding from visual displays , 1972 .

[11]  E. Gibson Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development , 1969 .

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

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

[14]  J. Townsend Theoretical analysis of an alphabetic confusion matrix , 1971 .

[15]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task , 1974 .

[16]  Robert Fox,et al.  Effects of noise similarity and redundancy on the information processed from brief visual displays , 1970 .