Accuracy and order of report in tachistoscopic identification.

[1]  J. Bruner,et al.  Familiarity of Letter Sequences and Tachistoscopic Identification , 1954 .

[2]  G. A. Miller.  THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[3]  W. Heron,et al.  Perception as a function of retinal locus and attention. , 1957, The American journal of psychology.

[4]  Bryden Mp.  Order of report in dichotic listening. , 1962 .

[5]  H. F. Crovitz,et al.  Tendencies to eye movement and perceptual accuracy. , 1962, Journal of experimental psychology.

[6]  A. Baddeley.  Immediate Memory and the “Perception” of Letter Sequences , 1964 .

[7]  D J Mewhort,et al.  Sequential redundancy and letter spacing as determinants of tachistoscopic recognition. , 1966, Canadian journal of psychology.

[8]  M. Bryden,et al.  A model for the sequential organization of behaviour. , 1967, Canadian journal of psychology.

[9]  D. Mewhort.  Guessing and the Order-of-Approximation Effect , 1970 .

[10]  D. Mewhort,et al.  Processing capacity and switching attention in dichotic listening. , 1971 .

[11]  Ralph Norman Haber.  An alphanumeric display program for a PDP-8 , 1971 .

[12]  M. P. Bryden,et al.  Tables of letter sequences varying in order of approximation to English , 1971 .

[13]  D. Mewhort,et al.  Scanning and the familiarity effect in tachistoscopic recognition. , 1972, Canadian journal of psychology.

[14]  Mewhort Dj.  Retrieval tags and order of report in dichotic listening. , 1973 .

[15]  Lester A. Lefton,et al.  Guessing and the order of approximation effect. , 1973 .

[16]  E. Scheerer.  A further test of the scanning hypothesis in tachistoscopic recognition. , 1973, Canadian journal of psychology.