Contextual facilitation from attended and unattended messages

Listeners shadowed a list of words, a sentence, or a few words followed by the remainder of a sentence, and their shadowing latencies to the final word were recorded. The sentence or part of the sentence served to provide contextual information prior to the target word, and as the amount of context increased the shadowing latency to the final word decreased. Each presentation comprised a dichotic message, however, and the context was sometimes provided in the message not being shadowed—the unattended message. Unattended context did facilitate the shadowing response, but the extent of the facilitation was constant regardless of the amount of context. The effect of attended context was interpreted as a result of a strategical manipulation of response bias (a resource-limited process), whereas unattended context may be effective through spreading excitation in semantic memory (a data-limited process).

[1]  R. S. Corteen,et al.  Autonomic responses to shock-associated words in an unattended channel. , 1972, Journal of Experimental Psychology.

[2]  F. Craik,et al.  Levels of Pro-cessing: A Framework for Memory Research , 1975 .

[3]  J. Lewis,et al.  Semantic processing of unattended messages using dichotic listening. , 1970, Journal of experimental psychology.

[4]  Geoffrey Underwood,et al.  SEMANTIC INTERFERENCE FROM UNATTENDED PRINTED WORDS , 1976 .

[5]  Donald E. Broadbent,et al.  Decision and stress , 1971 .

[6]  Allan Collins,et al.  A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing , 1975 .

[7]  J L Bradshaw,et al.  Peripherally presented and unreported words may bias the perceived meaning of a centrally fixated homograph. , 1974, Journal of experimental psychology.

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

[9]  J. Morton,et al.  Effect of word transitional probability on phoneme identification , 1976 .

[10]  G. Underwood Attention, awareness, and hemispheric differences in word recognition , 1977, Neuropsychologia.

[11]  J. Deutsch,et al.  Attention: Some theoretical considerations. , 1963 .

[12]  Daniel G Bobrow,et al.  On data-limited and resource-limited processes , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[13]  H. H. Clark The language-as-fixed-effect fallacy: A critique of language statistics in psychological research. , 1973 .

[14]  Geoffrey M. Underwood,et al.  Attention and Memory , 1976 .

[15]  E. Tulving,et al.  STIMULUS INFORMATION AND CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION AS DETERMINANTS OF TACHISTOSCOPIC RECOGNITION OF WORDS. , 1963, Journal of experimental psychology.

[16]  D. Broadbent Perception and communication , 1958 .

[17]  J. Morton THE EFFECTS OF CONTEXT ON THE VISUAL DURATION THRESHOLD FOR WORDS. , 1964, British journal of psychology.

[18]  R. Schvaneveldt,et al.  Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. , 1971, Journal of experimental psychology.

[19]  D. G. MacKay Aspects of the Theory of Comprehension, Memory and Attention , 1973 .

[20]  E. Loftus Activation of Semantic Memory , 1973 .

[21]  M. Erdelyi A new look at the new look: perceptual defense and vigilance. , 1974, Psychological review.

[22]  D. Norman Toward a theory of memory and attention. , 1968 .