Hierarchical stages in the processing of visual information

Previous research had indicated that when subjects are instructed to report one of a number of visually displayed items, both the number and spacing of the presented material affect report accuracy and latency. The present experiment sought to determine the nature and temporal course of the interference provided by nonattended visual material. Subjects reaction times were measured for deciding which of two targets occupied the indicated position in one or eight element displays. Placing replicas of the target in nonindicated display positions was equivalent to presenting the target alone. Members of the opposite response set produced maximum interference, while encodable and unencodable noise elements not belonging to a response set produced an intermediate decrement. For all display types, presenting the indicator prior to display onset decreased reaction time. Dividing each of the display elements into two parts and presenting the parts asynchronously provided evidence that subjects were indifferent to the presence of complete forms for the first 50 msec. These results were interpreted as supporting the existence of a hiararchical sequence of stages consisting of a preattentive stage which segregates the input into objects and an attentive stage which is likened to a spatial scanner responsible for synthesizing the crude preattentive features into recognized forms. The concurrent operation of these stages provides for the redirection of attention when changes in the input are detected.

[1]  George Sperling,et al.  The information available in brief visual presentations. , 1960 .

[2]  A. Treisman Contextual Cues in Selective Listening , 1960 .

[3]  Adolfo Guzman,et al.  Decomposition of a visual scene into three-dimensional bodies , 1968 .

[4]  Terry J. Spencer,et al.  Some Effects of Different Masking Stimuli on Iconic Storage , 1969 .

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

[6]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Some factors determining efficiency of selective attention. , 1970 .

[7]  James T. Townsend,et al.  Lateral masking for letters with unlimited viewing time , 1971 .

[8]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  Visual processing capacity and attentional control. , 1972, Journal of experimental psychology.

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

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

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

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

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

[14]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Selective encoding from multielement visual displays , 1973 .

[15]  J. Beck,et al.  The effects of concentrated and distributed attention on peripheral acuity , 1973 .

[16]  R. A. Kinchla,et al.  Detecting target elements in multielement arrays: A confusability model , 1974 .

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

[18]  B. Eriksen,et al.  The importance of being first: A tachistoscopic study of the contribution of each letter to the recognition of four-letter words , 1974 .

[19]  John E. Holmgren The effect of a visual indicator on rate of visual search: Evidence for processing control , 1974 .

[20]  J. Rohrbaugh,et al.  Reaction time measurement of temporal integration and organization of form , 1975 .