Dependent spatial channels in visual processing

Abstract The present experiments were designed to test whether or not processing in visual information channels defined by spatial position is independent in the visual search paradigm. In Experiment 1 subjects were asked to judge whether or not a red square was present in a display of two colored geometric figures. Their mean reaction time (RT) to respond no to a “divided target” display in which one figure was red and the other was a square was about 100 msec longer than to control displays containing either two red circles or two green squares. This result is inconsistent with a spatially serial independent-channel model and with many spatially parallel independent-channel models. The relatively slow responding to divided target displays was replicated in Experiments 2 and 3, when subjects judged whether or not an “A” was present in a display of two alphanumeric characters, and a divided target display was one which contained two features of “A.” Experiments 4 and 5 demonstrated that the dependence observed in the first three experiments was probably the result of two mechanisms: crosstalk integration, whereby the target features are integrated across the two spatial channels, and repetition facilitation, whereby processing is facilitated (in some cases) when the two figures in the display are physically identical. Experiment 6 suggested that subjects organized the display in terms of spatial channels even when the task allowed subjects to ignore spatial location.

[1]  William K. Estes,et al.  Further evidence concerning scanning and sampling assumptions of visual detection models , 1968 .

[2]  D. C. Donderi,et al.  Parallel processing in visual same-different decisions , 1969 .

[3]  Richard C. Atkinson,et al.  Response latency in visual search with redundancy in the visual display , 1974 .

[4]  W. Eichelman,et al.  Familiarity effects in the simultaneous matching task. , 1970 .

[5]  L. E. Krueger Search time in a redundant visual display. , 1970, Journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  R. L. Knoll,et al.  The Perception of Temporal Order: Fundamental Issues and a General Model , 1973 .

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

[8]  I. Biederman Perceiving Real-World Scenes , 1972, Science.

[9]  Howard E. Egeth,et al.  Parallel processing of multielement displays , 1972 .

[10]  William K. Estes,et al.  Reaction time in relation to display size and correctness of response in forced-choice visual signal detection , 1966 .

[11]  G Wolford,et al.  Perturbation model for letter identification. , 1975, Psychological review.

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

[13]  A. Treisman Strategies and models of selective attention. , 1969, Psychological review.

[14]  G. M. Reicher Perceptual recognition as a function of meaninfulness of stimulus material. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[15]  A Pollatsek,et al.  Familiarity affects visual processing of words. , 1975, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  R. Atkinson,et al.  Processing time as influenced by the number of elements in a visual display , 1969 .

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