The effects of location cuing on redundant-target processing

The present study is concerned with the redundany gain: the observation that subjects respond faster to simultaneously presented redundant targets than to single targets. This finding is usually interpreted as evidence for parallel, self-terminating, unlimited-capacity processing. Alternatively, it has been claimed that the reaction-time advantage with redundant targets is simply due to spatial uncertainty under single-target conditions. The present study tested this hypothesis. In Experiment 1, subjects responded when one, two, or three letters E were presented, and refrained from responding when one, two, or three letters F were presented. In half of the trials, location uncertainty was eliminated by presentation of a line segment at one of the locations of the subsequently appearing target letters. The results reject the alternative spatial-uncertainty explanation: even when the location of the impending target is cued in advance, there is no attenuation of the redundancy gain. Experiment 2 served as a control experiment and showed a clear redundancy gain, even in conditions in which it was ensured that, before display onset, attention was directed to a location of one of the impending targets.

[1]  Ronald G. Shapiro,et al.  Repeating the target neither speeds nor slows its detection: Evidence for independent channels in letter processing , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[2]  G W Humphreys,et al.  Luminance-increment detection: capacity-limited or not? , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Temporal changes in the distribution of attention in the visual field in response to precues , 1987, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  A. H. C. van der Heijden,et al.  Selective Attention in Vision , 1991 .

[5]  Charles W. Eriksen,et al.  Target redundancy in visual search: Do repetitions of the target within thedisplay impair processing? , 1979 .

[6]  S. Yantis,et al.  An interactive race model of divided attention. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

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

[9]  J. Jonides.  Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind's eye's movement , 1981 .

[10]  J. Theeuwes.  Exogenous and endogenous control of attention: The effect of visual onsets and offsets , 1991, Perception & psychophysics.

[11]  A. H. C. Heijden,et al.  Some evidence for correlated separate activation in a simple letter-detection task , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  A H van der Heijden,et al.  Some evidence for a limited capacity parallel selfterminating process in simple visual search tasks. , 1975, Acta psychologica.

[13]  A. H. C. van der Heijden,et al.  Some evidence for a limited capacity parallel selfterminating process in simple visual search tasks , 1975 .

[14]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Coactivation in the perception of redundant targets. , 1990, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance.

[15]  A. H. C. Heijden,et al.  Parallel processing of redundant targets in simple visual search tasks , 1983, Psychological research.

[16]  J Theeuwes,et al.  Visual selective attention: a theoretical analysis. , 1993, Acta psychologica.

[17]  C. Bundesen.  A theory of visual attention. , 1990, Psychological review.

[18]  Charles Folk,et al.  Spatial parallelism in the processing of lines, letters, and lexicality. , 1989 .