Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

A cognitive effect of a moving object’s dynamic visual history : spatiotemporal integration of physical… Gibbs, Brian J. 1985

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1985_A8 G52.pdf [ 6.02MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096496.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096496-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096496-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096496-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096496-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096496-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096496-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096496-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096496.ris

Full Text

A COGNITIVE EFFECT OF A MOVING OBJECT'S DYNAMIC VISUAL HISTORY:  SPATIOTEMPORAL  INTEGRATION OF PHYSICAL PROPERTIES By  BRIAN J . GIBBS B.Sc,  The U n i v e r s i t y  A THESIS SUBMITTED  of B r i t i s h  Columbia,  IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF  THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE MASTER OF  OF  ARTS  in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department  We  accept t h i s  of P s y c h o l o g y )  t h e s i s as conforming  to the r e q u i r e d  standard  THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA September Q  Brian  1982  1985  J . Gibbs,  1985  In p r e s e n t i n g  t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of  requirements f o r an advanced degree a t the  the  University  o f B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree t h a t the L i b r a r y s h a l l make it  f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference  and  study.  I  further  agree t h a t p e r m i s s i o n f o r e x t e n s i v e copying o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may department o r by h i s o r her  be granted by the head o f representatives.  my  It is  understood t h a t copying or p u b l i c a t i o n o f t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain  s h a l l not be allowed without my  permission.  Department of The  U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h Columbia  1956  Main M a l l  Vancouver, Canada V6T  1Y3  Date  DE-6  sepr.  /3  ns£  written  i i Abstract  Despite  enormous  environment, coherent. its  the visual  world  I n d e e d , an o b j e c t  complexity  a constant  information  time,  may c h a n g e  perceptual  seen as  in virtually  identity.  registered in different  but r e f e r r i n g  i n the o p t i c a l  is effortlessly  p h y s i c a l p r o p e r t i e s and i n i t s s p a t i a l  maintain of  informational  a l l of  l o c a t i o n and y e t Apparently  pieces  segments o f s p a c e -  t o t h e same o b j e c t ,  are perceptually  integrated. Kahneman, T r e i s m a n cognitive  organization  organization; their  work.  paradigm  removed  moving o b j e c t s  a line-figure  a r e again  a marker a p p e a r s , c u e i n g  target  letter  inconsistent in  another  conditions  conditions  object).  An RT a d v a n t a g e  i s termed  the object  i n t h e o b j e c t s and  (field-2).  The t a s k i s  The c r i t i c a l  i n the target  (the target  a n d a r e then  move t o new  i s between c o n s i s t e n t  i s previewed  d i s p l a y of t h i s  object,  i n t h e cued o b j e c t .  (RT) c o m p a r i s o n  of  (a) L e t t e r s a r e  presented  one o f them  an e x t e n s i o n  they developed the  (b) t h e empty o b j e c t s  (c) l e t t e r s  t o name t h e l e t t e r  phases:  perceptual  i n t e g r a t i o n of  The p r o t o t y p i c a l v i s u a l  each w i t h i n  (field-1),  positions,  time  thesis represents  c o n s i s t s of three  presented,  to this  the spatiotemporal  regarding  preview paradigm.  ( i n progress) explored the  corresponding  the present To study  information  and G i b b s  reaction  c o n d i t i o n s (the  o b j e c t ) and  letter  i s previewed, but  for consistent  effect  because  i t represents  object-specific in  facilitation.  many e x p e r i m e n t s ,  motion the  to  create  object  level,  but  i n c l u d i n g one  objects.  effect  Certain  does not  involves  Object  occur  information  e f f e c t s were  utilizing  only  experiments  at  a  lexical  concerning  generated apparent  suggested or  that  semantic  physical  properties. The of  the  present  information  Preview  property.  In  on  but  the  apparent  motion,  letters.  paradigm  by  dimension.  with  tasks of  was  The  the  color  response-irrelevant effect  four  was  not  attending  object  moving  In  to  effect.  with  field-1  a  letter-shape  effect  by  of  utilizing  with color  was  and  the  reduced  the  was  size  by object  shape  unaffected  inconsistency;  reduced  These  response-irrelevant  response-irrelevant object  figures,  or  elaborated  a  effect  line size.  experiments  inconsistency;  slightly  nature  stimulus  w i t h p r e s e n c e and  v a r i a t i o n on  shape by  object  e f f e c t s were o b t a i n e d  presence  eliminated  the  requiring  Duodimension experiments  introducing  inconsistency;  of  physical  a particular physical  field-2.  object  response-irrelevant  color  basis  artifacts  field-1  the  typically  experiments u t i l i z i n g  were not  confusing  object  with  e f f e c t s were o b t a i n e d  effects  effect  explores  integration underlying  task,  identification  with  further  e x p e r i m e n t s were c o n d u c t e d ,  letter-naming  object  thesis  the  by letter  response-irrelevant  inconsistency. The  specific  duodimension  r e s u l t s suggest  representation  underlying  the  that  the  object  objecteffect  consists  i v of the  somewhat c o n j o i n e d r o l e of a t t e n t i o n  properties. i n the object  speculation  that  attention.  A c c o u n t s of the o b j e c t  et  that  between  and  that  i t s seeming  the  relative  stimuli rather  accounts.  i s that  rather  object  e f f e c t does  t o Kahneman  than  stimulus  i n apparent  i s an i l l u s i o n low s p a t i a l  The g e n e r a l  involve  to  on t h e i r u n i t i z a t i o n ,  r e s u l t s support  the s p a t i o t e m p o r a l  respect  effect rival  than  retroactivity  The p r e s e n t  thesis  propert i e s .  and i n s p i r e s t h e  i t r e s u l t s from t h e  q u i c k n e s s w i t h which  each of t h e s e  effect,  i t i s b a s e d on a d e c r e a s e  distance  processed.  that  of response t e n d e n c i e s  information,  has i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r  m o t i o n m i g h t be s p e c i a l w i t h  a l . ' s c a n be p r o p o s e d :  integration  This  p r o d u c e d by  frequencies  arguments  conclusion  against  of t h i s  integration underlying  information  about  are  physical  the  V  T a b l e of  Contents  Abstract List  ii  of F i g u r e s  vii  Acknowledgment  viii  INTRODUCTION General  1 Problem  2  Immediate C o n t e x t : The The  Preview  Paradigm  4  Paradigm  4  A Review of t h e F i n d i n g s and  Interpretations  Conclusions Conceptual  26  Issues  43  Spatiotemporal  Information Integration  46  PRESENT INVESTIGATION Relation Purpose  54  t o the P r e v i o u s Design  An  54  and R a t i o n a l e  Generalizing Why  55  the O b j e c t E f f e c t  a Featural Elaboration  Object E f f e c t  57  Cannot  Be  Assumed...59  of t h e P a r a d i g m  61  The M o n o d i m e n s i o n E x p e r i m e n t s S u b j e c t s and  64  Apparatus  64  Experiment  1: P r e s e n c e  (Late-Cue V e r s i o n )  64  Experiment  2: P r e s e n c e  (Early-Cue Version)  75  Experiment  3: S i z e  E x p e r i m e n t s 4 and 5: P r e s e n c e and (Long-Duration-Preview Versions) The  9  Duodimension  Experiments  78 Size 80 85  vi  S u b j e c t s and A p p a r a t u s  86  E x p e r i m e n t 6: P r e s e n c e (Shape as R e s p o n s e - I r r e l e v a n t  Dimension)  87  E x p e r i m e n t 7: S i z e (Shape as R e s p o n s e - I r r e l e v a n t  Dimension)  88  Experiment  8: C o l o r  (Letter-Shape  as R e s p o n s e - I r r e l e v a n t  E x p e r i m e n t 9: L e t t e r ( C o l o r as R e s p o n s e - I r r e l e v a n t  Dimension)  GENERAL DISCUSSION The  99  Qualifications  of the Duodimension  The  "No-Interaction" Result  Color  Result  of the O b j e c t  Irrelevant  Findings  Experiments  "Elimination"  Reduction  Rival  on t h e S i z e  The  by  96 99  Results  Analysis  Dimension)..91  102 104 104  Effect  Variation  105  and L e t t e r - s h a p e  Accounts  100  114  of the O b j e c t  Effect  The  Response-Integration  The  Apparent-Distance  Account  118  The  S p a t i a l - F r e q u e n c y Account  120  Implication  Account  116  o f t h e S t u d y a s a Whole  117  121  References  124  Appendix  1 34  vi i List  Figure  1.  The t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s  o f Kahneman,  Treisman  ( i n progress)  basic  Figure  2.  and G i b b s ' s  triangle-and-box display  The t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s Ternus d i s p l a y  Figure  3.  of F i g u r e s  and Gibbs  The  conditions  display  as u s e d  of the b a s i c  a s u s e d by Kahneman,  Treisman  four  6  ( i n progress)  17  of the four-box  i n t h e monodimension  l a t e - c u e presence experiment  66  Ac knowledgment  I thank Danny Kahneman and all  of  this  research  the  thesis project in s p e c i f i c ,  supportive  in general.  association offered Finally, me  with  along  the  conducted--for  I will  them.  the way  by  Jim  While  Postgraduate Engineering  lessons  earning  take  for being  so  by  from t h e  from t h e  my  encouragement  Larry  itself  Ward.  for  teaching  t h e r e i n f o r making  I was  Natural  R e s e a r c h C o u n c i l of Canada and  Graduate F e l l o w s h i p  on  pleasant.  the Master's degree  Scholarship  i s the  S t e i g e r and  "Labbies"  lab  unfailingly  much away from  A t t e n t i o n Lab  thank a l l t h e  toughest  and  whose  p r o v i d i n g guidance  Also appreciated  I acknowledge the  so much, and  even  was  Anne T r e i s m a n - - i n  supported  Sciences by  by  a  and  a University  U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h  Columbia.  1  A Cognitive History:  Effect  of  a Moving O b j e c t ' s  Spatiotemporal  I n t e g r a t i o n of  A P l e i s t o c e n e hominid some b o u l d e r s toward her.  become d i s l o d g e d From  i n s t a n t to  from any  particular  location  of  The  the  boulder's  off,  and  boulder  size  and  I t bounces  is  sometimes c o m p l e t e l y  collated  or  across sources  unitary  o b j e c t s with  histories.  informational (following information  Gibson, to  she  1959)  itself  t h e more common view  revealed  light  to  effective the  and  i s appropriately  and  bouldersas  coherent  percept  future can  and  optical  In  i t s physical  facilitates  s u c c e s s f u l l y dodges  environment  complexity.  about  careening  identities  the  i s that with  obvious  the  genes on  not  i t break  faces are  constant  to pass her  i s normally  change.  stimulation--are perceived  r e s p o n s e , and  optical  The  intervening objects.  information  constant  Because s e e i n g be  by  of  p a t c h e s of  hominid's w e l l - o r g a n i z e d  a well-organized  Obviously  pieces  of  t i m e , and  of dynamic  The  living  Yet  issuing  undergoes v i o l e n t  out  nothing  space and  hillside  information  i t s various  obscured  location.  complex  deluge,  source  i n and  is virtually  Suddenly,  t u m b l e down t h e  shape change a s  i t s spin.  properties  and  Properties  a hillside.  i n s t a n t the  i t s c o l o r c h a n g e s as  there  on  Physical  changes d r a m a t i c a l l y .  information  by  short,  forages  Dynamic V i s u a l  be  the  generations. extremely  effortless,  rich.  what  r i c h n e s s comes  may  great  Direct-perception theorists consider  account i s that  the  f o r the  r i c h n e s s of success  complexity  is a  optical  of v i s i o n , 'problem' t o  but be  2 'solved' and  by  recoding  Tversky, two  the of  1977;  schools  visual  system  information Epstein,  of  thought  t h r o u g h the  (Broadbent,  1982). can  be  The viewed  1976;  Jansson,  1980):  structure  versus  processing.  The  emphasis on  present  The  research  organization and  events  identity  of  location  and  objects  associated  an  This  interdependence  that  adjacent will  How  of  their  Koffka points  make t h e  two  space belong  to  object."  went on  well  He  the  two  integrated part  integration,  the  more c o n s t a n t  visual How  the  second  i s the  f o r the 97)  the  or  of  field.  will  the  i t be  of  different given  the  visual  that  "stimuli  nothing in  is a The  and  stimuli  the  same  particularly  stronger  f o r c e s which h o l d i n c h a n g e s of  qua  at  behavioral  t o one  thing  mutual  Gestalt  points  "A  stronger  in i t s  and  laws of  to e x p l a i n : total  objects  time?  noted  objects  cognitive  p e r t a i n i n g to a  s p a c e and  corresponding  the  &  perceptual  changes  retina contain  different  of  approach.  properties  began w i t h  search  the  one  informational  c o h e r e n c e of  despite  are  (1935, p.  on  as  Hofsten,  i n v e s t i g a t e the  is information  stimuli,  these  in cognitive  inquiry, stressing objects  and  organization. two  How  integrated across  s o r t of  psychologists  the  maintained  properties?  segregated?  moving o b j e c t  seeks to with  1980;  Problem  phenomenal w o r l d .  object  i n the  t h e s i s t a k e s the  herein  i n the  J o h a n s s o n , von  structure  General  Ullman,  nonpolemically  (Demkiw & M i c h a e l s ,  environment  1958;  encoding  d i f f e r e n c e between  emphasis  emphasis on  cognitive  it  its  together,  stimulation..."  3 (p.  305).  offered  The  by  field  Gestalt  explanations  psychology  (1942) f o r b e i n g  ad  acknowledged  the  importance  that  impressions  "visual  against  a  hoc  and  Kolers  the  how  question  falling  on  sensory  experience Attneave  of  of  an  of  Kahneman and An  specific  object  location  and  continuity of  object  "object  unity  An  of  receives and  that  file  f o r the  as  in space.  keeps t r a c k  the  object  accounts  f o r the  accounts  different  the  moves. a  about  even as  change.  of  the  metaphor of  does so  i n t e g r a t i o n of  perceptual  Similarly,  to maintain  the  issue  stimulation  object  about  seen  and  a central  information  its specificity  information  objects,  perception  of  even as  too  302)  system  i s able  field,  object  identity;  filing  a  the  The preservation  for  the  objects;  information  and  about  its a  object. experimental  organization constitutes thesis.  file"  i n the  the  accounts  single  visual  (1984) p r o p o s e  p r o p e r t i e s of  of  segregation  and  flux  moving  these p r o p e r t i e s  system:  (p.  he  i s t r a n s l a t e d i n t o the  the  object  Lashley  observation  organized  r e v i e w of  continuous  surfaces  Treisman  elementary  (1983) i d e n t i f i e s  the  by  t a u t o l o g i c a l , but  the  discrete objects  of  integrality  of  in a  (1974) a s k s how  properties  often  background."  More c o n t e m p o r a r i l y ,  perception  were c r i t i c i z e d  c o n s i s t of  l e s s coherent  representation,  of v i s u a l  i n v e s t i g a t i o n of  underlying the  the  immediate  Specifically,  perceptual  research  the  cognitive  c o h e r e n c e of  context  f o r the  Kahneman, T r e i s m a n and  Gibbs  objects present (in  4 progress)—henceforth spatiotemporal objects.  The  present  but  information  KTG--have s t u d i e d information  thesis deals  this  mother p r o j e c t ,  stimuli,  as  i n t e g r a t i o n of  What d i s t i n g u i s h e s the  cited  i t i s not  r e f e r r i n g to  w i t h the  experimental  the  series  moving  same phenomenon. i s that,  unlike  p r i m a r i l y concerned with  explores  the  spatiotemporal  integration  regarding  the  physical properties  of  letter  of  moving  objects. Immediate C o n t e x t : The To  i n v e s t i g a t e the  information,  KTG  project  follows,  by,  preview  the  spatiotemporal  developed and  the  stimulus  by  In  (Eichelman, paradigm  this  target there  the  and  the  sense  i t is like  and  of  present  prompted  of  the  a priming  figural  compelling  preceding  and  there  preview.  figural  prime:  consecutively  In  i n the  The  target paradigm  The  two  the  By  figural  s t i m u l i are  within  typical  relation two  preview  context  priming  between  stimuli  same l o c a t i o n  side-by-side.  i s a patent  the  is  a visual  presented  preview appear.  i s no  experiment  preview paradigm  However, what d i s t i n q u i s h e s  and  the  presented  target  questions  advance p r e s e n t a t i o n  perhaps simultaneously preview  the  to a subsequently  1970).  experiment target  The  Paradigm  i s i t s manipulation  w h i c h the  simply  the  identical  stimulus.  preview paradigm.  visual  paradigm.  i t s name s u g g e s t s ,  characterized  Paradigm  i n t e g r a t i o n of  concerns e m p i r i c a l  The As  Preview  are or  contrast, relation displayed  in  the  between either  5 as  serially  serially  visible  visible  Experiments visual  parts  target.  that  may  that  connected them.  by r e a l  The r e s u l t  display in  o r may  a r e seen  the f i n a l  display.  The b a s i c  proper.  issue  to the t a r g e t ,  speed  facilitation  a s b e l o n g i n g t o t h e same o b j e c t  be g r e a t e r  to different  objects?  information  sources i n t e r a c t  information  sources?  One o f KTG's e a r l y  answering  of  the preview  employed  this  initial  will  basic  paradigm  i n such  It  the preview i s  question  is,  f o r target-preview pairs than  That  for pairs  i s , will than  experiments--a in this  (see Figure  1).  of a d i s p l a y  seen as  within-object  between-object  progenitor  of the  thesis—was  q u e s t i o n and c a n s e r v e a s an  a modified version  by  t h e advance  more f u l l y  be r e p o r t e d  as o b j e c t s  i s affected  response; the e s s e n t i a l  seen  at  i n the  between  and i t s p r e v i e w .  r e g a r d l e s s o f how  this  that  are perceptually  of i n t e r e s t  between t h e t a r g e t  with respect  experiments  In t h e  occurring  observed  will  belonging  of t h e f u t u r e  stimulus f i e l d i s  response t o the target  be e x p e c t e d t h a t ,  will  a preview  t o move and t a k e up new p o s i t i o n s  relation  presentation  objects  three-phase  a stimulus f i e l d i s  apparent motion  i s that  the  presented  the target  and/or  i s whether  might  another  or as  figures.  utilize  t h e s e two s t i m u l u s f i e l d s  experiments figural  phase  not i n c l u d e  phase  includes  i n t e r m e d i a t e phase  figure  o f two s e p a r a t e moving  In t h e i n i t i a l  In t h e f i n a l  presented  o f a s i n g l e moving  of t h e p r e v i e w p a r a d i g m  displays.  presented  parts  The  aimed exemplar  experiment  originated  by von  6  CONSISTENT  A. 1  1  : B ; i  J  INCONSISTENT  CONTROL  F i g u r e 1. The t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s o f Kahneman, T r e i s m a n and Gibbs's ( i n progress) basic triangle-and-box d i s p l a y . (5/7 X a c t u a l s i z e ; dashed l i n e s r e f e r t o the f i r s t f i e l d , dashed a r r o w s t o m o t i o n , and s o l i d l i n e s t o t h e s e c o n d f i e l d ) .  7 Schiller  (1933, c i t e d  s e q u e n c e began w i t h figures  After  e a c h of  referred  to  for  ms.  1000  again,  as  the  field-1  of  it.  the  to  the  so  as  to  central  A  target  the  to  the or  line  following  displayed  to designate e i t h e r  whichever  object the  possible.  letter Reaction  line  the  the  first  figures  the  display and  the  a  once  screen,  the  the  In  completing  their  the  field-2  figure  other  i n the  130  to  to  the  the  right  events  stimulus—was  and  The  box  arranged  a visual  triangle  (RTs)  screen  r i g h t , and  figures,  appearing  one  letters,  the  t h i s movement, two  the  box  or  became  and  two on  screen—one  target.  times  line  were empty  across  left.  letter—the  i n one  of  f i x a t i o n dot  left  f i x a t i o n dot  held  bisect  These  figures  bisect  the  a pair  display  l e t t e r s were p r e s e n t e d ,  line  presented  read aloud  of  Each  s t i m u l i , remained  right  empty  Immediately  occurred:  as  to  figures.  soon as  movement, the  horizontally  of  line  as  central  two  the  downward e i t h e r  upward e i t h e r  left  so  of  t h e y began moving d i a g o n a l l y  triangle  ms  a delay,  As  1974).  presentation  t r i a n g l e above the  it.  within  the  arranged v e r t i c a l l y  screen—a below  in Attneave,  or  the  subject's  the  was  box, task  cued o b j e c t  comprised  cue  as  was  to  quickly  experimental  data. In the  target  field-1. the  the  prototypical letter  By  target,  target-yoked  can  occurring the  preview experiment  occupy e i t h e r i n the  object  of  two  that  p r e v i e w o c c u p i e s what w i l l  location;  by  occurring  i n the  the  preview  locations will be  later termed  other  of  in contain the  object,  the  8 preview  occupies  location.  The  distinction. is  i n the  condition,  i n the  condition  in  field-1  both The  conditions: in  field-1,  and  preceding  letters.  letter  by  Again,  target  the  condition  the  different  moving o b j e c t s .  and  so  the  and  the  same moving o b j e c t ,  control  are  the in  is  is also  a  presented  and  only  target  and  preview  condition  f o r the  reflects  i s more a k i n  preview i n the  that  i s that  i n the  presented  within  advantage  condition  therefore  i s termed t h e  inconsistent  priming  is  the  time  so  appear  inconsistent  non-object-specific  to a standard  of  are  are presented  A reaction  f a c i l i t a t i o n , and  both  difference  and  these  letter  in f i e l d - 2  from  RTs  The  between  a nonpreview letter  inconsistent  advantage  i s between mean  conditions.  equidistant  within  RT  letters  contrast  a target  condition  An  In  letter  There  does not d i f f e r  consistent  effect.  nonpreview  i s presented  a nonpreview  inconsistent  temporally  object-specific  a  letter  location.  letter  location.  experimental  followed  over  the preview  target-nonyoked  i n which nonpreview  A preview  and  consistent  this  l o c a t i o n , and  the preview  the d i s p l a y  spatially  the  reflect  condition,  l o c a t i o n , and  the c o n s i s t e n t of  target-nonyoked  positions.  critical  composition  the  conditions  target-yoked  control  for  i n the  target-nonyoked  presented  termed  target-yoked  i s presented  inconsistent the  experimental  be  In t h e c o n s i s t e n t  presented  letter  what w i l l  over  f o r the reflects  object the  facilitation,  effect.  9 A Review of t h e F i n d i n g s The  described  effect.  RTs  shorter  In  Inconsistent  567  Control  572  the only The  target.  So,  significant  facilitation  t h e terms  the f o r e g o i n g  to  information  within  That  moving o b j e c t  seems t o c a r r y w i t h  past,  and  Figure letters  way  this  the c u r r e n t  Ramachandran  Schiller  way.  He  there  this  apply  of the  the s t i m u l i  result  i s that  a  about i t s  h i s t o r y can object.  a "visual  momentum"  the m o d i f i e d display  were d o t s r a t h e r  figures.  about  improve  of KTG's t r i a n g l e - a n d - b o x  line  the  information  i t information  used a d i s p l a y l i k e  were no  was  then  dynamic v i s u a l  processing  1), except t h a t  apparent motion  as  t a r g e t - n o n y o k e d , used  time t o  to describe  (1981) d e s c r i b e s  arrangement  and  RT  i s , i f a t a r g e t and i t s  s p a c e and  Another  a similar  and  to  which  a significant  t h e same o b j e c t ,  performance.  in  responded  as n o m i n a l d e s c r i p t o r s , seem a l s o t o  i s integrated across  influence  object-  i n t h e same o b j e c t  target-yoked  processing.  preview appear  perceptual  was  were not  A preview c o n f e r r e d  when i t a p p e a r e d  in  them  significantly  more r a p i d l y t h a n t h e c o n t r o l t r i a l s ,  only  object  ms  inconsistent t r i a l s  previews.  advantage  d i d g e n e r a t e an  i n the i n c o n s i s t e n t c o n d i t i o n . 554  significantly lacked  experiment  Consistent  specific.  Interpretations  i n t h e c o n s i s t e n t c o n d i t i o n were  t h a n RTs  fact,  exemplar  and  The  von (see  than  resulting  ambiguous or a t l e a s t b i s t a b l e ,  effect  10 proceeding  c l o c k w i s e on some t r i a l s  and c o u n t e r c l o c k w i s e  others.  However,  parallel  s t r e a m s of s e q u e n t i a l l y - p r e s e n t e d d o t s  angled  across the screen  downward  to the r i g h t ,  direction  with  which they  infers  either  that  downward  motion.  the flow  never  "the i n t e r a c t i o n s  of a p a i r  earlier  dots."  or  to b i a s the  motion  against  s e q u e n c e a r e i n f l u e n c e d by t h e h i s t o r y i n t e r a c t i o n s with  t h a t were  The von S c h i l l e r  of t h e a p p a r e n t  were embedded,  i n two  t o the l e f t  Ramachandran was a b l e  of the apparent  a l w a y s moved in  by embedding t h e f o u r s t i m u l i  on  i t .  of d o t s of t h e i r  dots  of t h e d o t s  Ramachandran seen i n past  ( p . 18)  Parametric V a r i a t i o n s KTG of  found  one l e t t e r  object-specific by a n o t h e r  circumstances.  f o r the c a r r i e r  for  t o be o n l y  observed  were p r e s e n t e d  appearing  facilitation  cueing  also  stimuli  i t was n o t  t o be d i f f e r e n t Object  effects  r e m a i n e d when  o b j e c t s of  shapes, nor were  distractors  field-2. by a marker  with  of t h e  the disappearance  the t a r g e t e a r l y relative  the t a r g e t simultaneously both  experimental  t h e t a r g e t was p r e c u e d  the object e f f e c t  experiments, field-1  Cueing  of  t h r e e and f o u r moving b o x e s .  i n the nontarget  simultaneously  1 letters.  discovered  two of them:  In some e x p e r i m e n t s  increase  figures  in displays involving  Object-specific  of the p r o c e s s i n g  under a wide v a r i e t y  F o r example, t h e y  necessary there  facilitation  a one s e c o n d  like  tended  to  t o that produced  by  with  this  field-2.  For e a r l y - c u e  a n d a 30 ms d i s p l a y  l e d to f a c i l i t a t i o n  t h a t was  field-  of the  completely  11 object  specific  experiment was  late  (as  with  i t was  a one  second  and  the  field-1  facilitation  was  not  although also a  there  was  i n the  specificity  of  the  e f f e c t s of  studied.  T h e r e was  effect  distance target  are  stimuli  or  apparently reducing  (Ramachandran, moving  line  connection variable, figures  1980), the  that  had  no  doing  some  between t h e  slightly  t o be  decided  inconsistent  with  object-  not-  the  separation  a  longthe  line  grouping  between  1981).  respect  the  between  moving  simply  distance  With  were  m a g n i t u d e of  the  them  Rather,  the  spatial t o the  h i g h e r - s p e e d movement of  time the  line  less object-specific facilitation l o w e r - s p e e d movement.  tested the  delay a  was  the  c o n d i t i o n and  & Nelson,  fall  lifetime  a b s e n c e of  preview-target  there  that  i n f l u e n c e , the  stimuli.  longer-duration,  considered  ms,  That i s ,  movement p a r a m e t e r s  more t h a n  Hoffman  shorter-duration,  the  takes  effective  b o t h movement d u r a t i o n s often  suggests  30  preview  f i g u r e s seem t o e s t a b l i s h a d e e p e r  produced  than d i d  This  cue  for only  effect,  d i f f e r e n c e i n the  the  1981;  i f the  develop.  Given  i t s preview  figures  object  between a s h o r t - d i s t a n c e  condition.  and  were e x p o s e d  manipulating no  However,  even when t h e  facilitation  The  object  object.  time to  late-cue  object-specific.  advantage  other  inconsequential  stimuli  completely  RT  described  field-1).  a significant  significant  appeared  f o r the  the  of  icon  the  a d e c a y of  increased  simple  within  from  object 120  ms  Although quarter  second  (Coltheart, advantage t o 220  i c o n - s e l e c t i o n account  of  ms the  as is  1 2 object  effect.  establish The across two  Rather,  a deeper question  t h e moving  temporal  letters  of how much  i n each o b j e c t  only  rise  target  t h e most  with only  Attention The  stimulus  i t s preview  cost  t o appear  so f a r d e m o n s t r a t e  i s presented  passive  could  be t h o u g h t  in field-1,  regard  & Snyder, t o priming  be e x p l a i n e d  (Becker,  question  1980); and c o s t  of as  because that the  information 1975b; such  circumstances  by a g e n e r a l  But  s t i m u l i are  issues are because  "facilitation  expectancy  may n o t be  i s an  Neely,  w o u l d n o t be d e c i s i v e  the p r e v a i l i n g experimental  dominance" c o u l d  degree,  i s t h e r e any  would p e r h a p s s u g g e s t  one ( P o s n e r  An a b s e n c e of c o s t  i s presented  in a different object.  i s an i m p o r t a n t  cost  processing  to a lesser  t o when more n e u t r a l  This  1977), a l t h o u g h even w i t h  mechanism  i n the  that  i t s preview  letters--which  relative  in field-1?  attentionally  under  Apparently the  i n t e g r a t i n g t h e p r e v i e w and t a r g e t  unsettled.  field-  Effect  and sometimes, a l b e i t  absence of p r o c e s s i n g  process  o f t h e two  was  e f f e c t i n t e g r a t e s the  stimulus  previews"--are presented  presented  An RT a d v a n t a g e  object.  b e n e f i t s when  nonpreview  processing  displaying  object.  t h e same o b j e c t ,  "invalid  the  recent  r e s u l t s discussed  when o n l y  i s integrated  by s e r i a l l y  in field-1.  to the object  and t h e O b j e c t  of a t a r g e t  between t h e s t i m u l i .  information  i n the t a r g e t  mechanism g i v i n g  same c a r r i e r  f i g u r e s seem t o  i f t h e p r e v i e w was t h e l a t t e r  1 s t i m u l i appearing  when  connection  s p a c e and t i m e was a d d r e s s e d  obtained  in  line  strictly  13 . limited  t o a t t e n t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s anyway  Hudson,  1982; T a y l o r ,  some a u t h o r s c o n t e n d the  prime  attention Loftus, To  that  With  respect  important  1975; H e n i k , F r i e d i c h & K e l l o g g , assess processing  presentation  costs,  1983).  some p r e v i e w  letters  i n v o l v i n g the p r e s e n t a t i o n  experiments i n v o l v i n g the  in field-1,  of d i g i t s  in field-1.  c a n be c o n s i d e r e d  target  s e t , t h e amount by w h i c h RT f o r t h e l e t t e r e x c e e d s RT f o r t h e d i g i t  i n d e x any p r o c e s s i n g "preview".  cost  In t w o - o b j e c t  of p r o c e s s i n g was.  with  but a l s o  digits  condition  neutral  cost,  On t h e b a s i s  passive  t o the l e t t e r control should  experiments  experiments then,  there  i t i s uncertain  f o r the object  effect is  or a c t i v e . to discern  natural manipulation  t o employ  only  i n d i c a t o r of the target  & Snyder,  1975a).  attention  on 27% o f t r i a l s ,  greater  If  was no e v i d e n c e  i n the o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c information  partially-valid  with  invalid  there  b u t i n some f o u r - o b j e c t  More d i r e c t a t t e m p t s were made attention  w i t h an  experiments,  whether t h e mechanism r e s p o n s i b l e attentionally  respect  control condition  associated  of t h e s e  that  (Collins &  the c o n t r o l condition  of nonpreview  on a t t e n t i o n t o  1978), and o t h e r s  i s e s s e n t i a l or a t l e a s t  with  to f a c i l i t a t i o n ,  i t i s not dependent  ( F i s c h l e r & Goodman,  were run n o t o n l y  one  1977).  ( D e G r o o t , Thomassen &  i s that  ones, but i t was p r e s e n t  that  the object than  integration.  A  o f making t h e c u e an  When a c u e was u s e d  for validly-cued objects  t h e r o l e of  location  (Posner  misdirected  e f f e c t produced  was  for invalidly-cued  i n both cases.  This  result  suggests  1 4 that  t h e moving o b j e c t  integrate  d o e s n o t have t o be a t t e n d e d  information.  Whether cue v a l i d i t y questionable, developed. letters double and  adequately  and so an a l t e r n a t i v e  In a t h r e e - o b j e c t  flash  of t h i s  was t h e d o u b l e - f l a s h e d  letter,  facilitation  priming;  b u t when t h e p r e v i e w i t generated  experiment,  attention  the  only  letters.  i t generated  effect  result  not o n l y  t o be s i g n i f i c a n t l y  stimuli  than  when t h e r e  Apparent Motion KTG field-1, initial  found  1980).  experiment  were  t h a t when o n l y some l i n e  but a l s o i n the  the o b j e c t  l a r g e r when t h e r e  upon  Furthermore,  1973), may be r e q u i r e d ,  because  effect  were two  was  field-1  four.  and t h e O b j e c t  so t h a t  i n d i c a t i o n s that  i n the sense of s e l e c t i o n  a four-object, early-cue  the o b j e c t  p r o p e r t i e s i s dependent  attention  (Kahneman,  Therefore, in  as p a r t s of the  i s c o n s i s t e n t with  (Rock & Gutman, 1981; B e c k e r ,  found  that  of s t i m u l i  attention  in  object-  d i d seem t o depend on  To t h e e x t e n t  of r e l a t i o n a l  sense of c a p a c i t y  strong  was n o t t h e d o u b l e - f l a s h e d  r e q u i r e s the i n t e r r e l a t i o n  apprehension  When t h e p r e v i e w  nonspecific priming.  the o b j e c t  this  Presumably, the  as w e l l as c o n s i d e r a b l e n o n s p e c i f i c  to the preview.  same o b j e c t ,  was  a t t r a c t e d a t t e n t i o n to i t s e l f  field-1  specific  effect  manipulation  d i s p l a y , one o f t h e f i e l d - 1  stimulus  away from t h e o t h e r  this  controls attention i s  was f l a s h e d on i n i t s box t w i c e .  letter,  f o r i tto  Effect one l e t t e r  was p r e s e n t e d i n  f i g u r e s were l e f t  phase of t h e d i s p l a y , c o n s i d e r a b l e  empty d u r i n g t h e facilitation  1 5 occurred  but none of  explanation fact and  that  for this  the t a r g e t .  redundant  Consistent  this  with this  i s Shepard  into  able  and  objects.  sometimes o c c u r s : and  The  by u s i n g  experiment  i s seen  the t a r g e t  by t h e a b i l i t y  t h e same l i n e  Ternus d i s p l a y ,  does  with only a  occurs  phase  circuit  o f t h e moving and  solitary  of whether  or not  figure.  employing  moving  of  i t s line  power o f a p p a r e n t m o t i o n  not u t i l i z e  the motion  function  regardless  h a r n e s s e d p u r p o s e l y i n an e x p e r i m e n t which  of a  Consequently, i n  of the t a r g e t  they are p r e s e n t e d w i t h i n  display,  a grey  circular  a short  to escape  letter.  unit  object-organizing  by  are not c o m p l e t e l y  trials  p r e v i e w t o form an o b j e c t  The  were  i n d e p e n d e n t l y of t h e m o t i o n  the o b j e c t - o r g a n i z i n g  is vitiated  They  a closed  frames  so  (1983)  presented stimuli  inconsistent  preview  and  objects.  sometimes a p p a r e n t m o t i o n  target  On  jump toward  experiment,  frames  figure,  p a t h of a p p a r e n t m o t i o n  t h e moving  between t h e p r e v i e w and  figure  Zare's  In t h e p r e v i e w  letter,  the  occurs only  to generate apparent motion  p a t h g u i d e s , and  the c a r r i e r  involves  t h e same l i n e  sequentially  to f o l l o w ;  itself.  field-1  effective  possible  of " p a t h - g u i d e d " a p p a r e n t motion.  t h e y were even  single  effect  apparent motion  presented within  between t h e two  stimulus  A  i s w i t n e s s e d between t h e p r e v i e w  Normally  f o r the motion  band,  this  of an o b j e c t  t o m a n i p u l a t e the p e r c e i v e d  placing band  object-specific.  w i t h t h e movement of t h e c a r r i e r  demonstration able  lack  apparent motion  between s t i m u l i is  i t was  line  the  was Ternus  figures.  connecting field-1  In t h e with  16 field-2 of  i n v o l v e s only apparent movement—no r e a l  the items  on t h e s c r e e n  occurs.  Still,  motion of t h e Ternus d i s p l a y serves combined  real  It  the t a r g e t with  links  and a p p a r e n t m o t i o n  displacement  the apparent  t h e same p u r p o s e a s t h e  of the four-box  one, and o n l y  display:  one, o f t h e f i e l d - 1  stimuli. The either After  Ternus  a certain  letters,  (1926, c i t e d  both,  that  This effect  When t h i s  the  other  to the l e f t with  these  stimuli  that  three  might  Ternus  i f one c r e a t e s  the apparent  i s engendered letter  fourth letter  motions of the  proceed  i n t h e same  i n the Ternus along  with  i s presented  preview  the target i n t o the l e f t of  l o c a t i o n s , the d i s p l a y appears t o  and the r i g h t - h a n d  t h e t a r g e t by a p p a r e n t l y  stimulus  stimuli  g l o b a l form o f a d i s p l a y i s  then  another  stimulus  fourth letter  other  the o v e r a l l  by p r e s e n t i n g  three  i n a cued  location.  1935) d i s c o v e r e d  direction,  field-2.  the  the t a r g e t  c o n s t i t u e n t s of that d i s p l a y w i l l  direction.  linked  into  from t h e  would be an ambiguous  or n e i t h e r o f t h e f i e l d - 1  in Koffka,  i n a given  display  a r e removed  the t a r g e t , appears  s e n s e of m o t i o n  a s moving  impression  shift  letters  way between t h e two f i e l d - 1  the r e s u l t i n g  perceived  local  these  one on  dot (see Figure 2 ) .  Were t h e d i s p l a y t o c o n s i s t of j u s t  Either,  moving  fixation  letter,  exactly half  locations.  the  interval,  and a t h i r d  location  be  c o n s i s t s o f two l e t t e r s ,  s i d e of the c e n t r a l  screen  one:  field-1  i s presented  field-1 moving  to the right  letter into  becomes  i t .  When  of the three  l o c a t i o n s , the d i s p l a y appears to s h i f t  t othe  17  I  F i g u r e 2. The t h r e e c o n d i t i o n s o f t h e b a s i c T e r n u s d i s p l a y as used by Kahneman, T r e i s m a n and G i b b s ( i n p r o g r e s s ) . (3 X a c t u a l s i z e ; hollow l e t t e r s r e f e r t o the f i r s t f i e l d , dashed a r r o w s t o a p p a r e n t m o t i o n , and s o l i d l e t t e r s t o t h e s e c o n d field) .  18 right the  and  the  target In  that  and  which  trials.  determines  display  factor  which  into  objects  standing  i n the dark,  uninterpretable  1975;  be  were  apparent  i s defined  here  therefore,  i s that  i s a c h i e v e d by motion  has  a l l that  group  c f . Wallach  will  of d o t s .  (1981) p r o d u c e d  between  triangles  gives rise  figures constitute  providing  apparent effect.  the o r g a n i z a t i o n  parts.  sequentially to the  a single He  shape, cues  and,  1953,  i n which  been  r e p o r t e d t o be a  of a  100  ms  of  most  person  result  depth  t o motion  dots  effect).  involving  the a p p a r e n t  "walking" e n t i t y  even  motion  and  these with  geometric quasi-  the p e r c e p t u a l  of p r o v i d i n g  important  of  (Johansson,  kinetic  impression that  attention,  of  the  presented squares  attributes  of  t h e p e r c e p t of  i n locomotion  a similar  displays  of a t t r a c t i n g  dimensional  is  be p e r c e i v e d i s an  Within  & O'Connell's,  occurring  independent  motion  as t a r g e t - y o k e d  are a t t a c h e d to the j o i n t s  more c u e - i m p o v e r i s h e d  of  experiment,  r e c o g n i z e d as a p e r s o n  functions  than  were  b e g i n n i n g t o move, however, the p a t t e r n  Ramachandran  with  i n d e t e r m i n i n g the p e r c e p t u a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n  If lights  will  trials  f o r the o b t a i n e d o b j e c t  assumption  scenes.  individual  consistent  as t a r g e t - n o n y o k e d ;  In s u p p o r t of t h i s , potent  becomes l i n k e d  into i t .  location  responsible  implicit  motion.  letter  more r a p i d l y  In t h i s  i s defined  must be  The the  experiment,  to s i g n i f i c a n t l y  inconsistent all  field-1  by a p p a r e n t l y moving  the Ternus  responded  motion  left-hand  cues  to three  f o r the present  to figure-ground segregation.  point,  Indeed,  von  19 Fieandt be  and M o u s t g a a r d  the p e r c e p t i o n  object,  and t h i s  (1977) c o n s i d e r  of d i s c r e t e p r e s e n t a t i o n s notion  i s not n o v e l ,  (1907) as an e a r l y p r o p o n e n t Beyond t h e f a c t two  that  as a  result  spatiotemporal  attributed stimuli  not something  this  the Ternus The  produced  by moving  p e c u l i a r to l i n e  I t c a n now more c o n f i d e n t l y be  are perceptually organized  stimuli  right.  i n t e g r a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n  to cognitive u n i t i z a t i o n  Furthermore,  Linke  of i t .  i s i m p o r t a n t i n i t s own  themselves.  uniform  t h e T e r n u s d i s p l a y i s employed i n  figures i s obviously  figures  motion to  f o r they c i t e  of t h e t h e s i s e x p e r i m e n t s t o be r e p o r t e d ,  preview  line  stroboscopic  occurring as a s i n g l e  integration i s clearly  seen as s u b - s t r u c t u r e s  when  two  object.  not r e s t r i c t e d t o  o f an o b j e c t  unit  ( c f . Palmer,  1977) . The  apparent motion  across  a distance  motion  across  i n the Ternus d i s p l a y takes  of about  distances  45 m i n u t e s  o f 15 m i n u t e s  considered  t o occur  subsequent  t o t h e a n a l y s i s of f o r m  Ramachandran,  relatively  1981; A n s t i s ,  late  1980).  specific  i n t e g r a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n  probably  not a very  processing  in perceptual (Braddick, Therefore,  the  processing  processing,  1974; the o b j e c t -  i n the Ternus d i s p l a y i s perceptual  goes.  A t i m e - c o u r s e i s s u e of p a r t i c u l a r timing  Apparent  o f a r c o r more i s  e a r l y e v e n t a s f a r as  of the t a r g e t  the  of a r c .  place  importance  of t h e o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c i n t e g r a t i o n w i t h of the preview.  concerns respect to  Obtaining o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c  20 facilitation design  i n the  suggests  facilitation field-1 not  object  operates  the  retroactively  i n the  cue  from cue  appears--it i s only  especially  retroactive but  letters  clear  phenomenon  (Kahneman  c f . Kahneman,  i s i n the  indeterminate of c o u r s e ,  the  does not  A d e g e n e r a t e T e r n u s d i s p l a y was congruity  perceptual  that  (Berbaum, L e n e l uncontested  display,  feature similarity  (eg. A t t n e a v e ,  a reasonable two  letters  between them, but appeared the  stimuli the  and  color  the  after  their  The  target.  the  a  field-1  i s created; is  to test  whether of  object e f f e c t .  enhances apparent Squires,  As  i n the  Consequently,  C o n d i t i o n s were  motion  1979)—  and  in  letter letter  t h e r e was  of  the  of no  field-1  instead defined  stimulus  not  Ternus  a target  one  The  1931)—though  in field-1,  between e i t h e r  and,  presented.  Petersik & Pantle,  two  object  completely  fourth, motion-biasing  between the  The  is itself  formation  an  offset,  omitted.  motion  relations  1974;  of  two  field-2  the  possibility.  T e r n u s d i s p l a y was apparent  1981;  were p r e s e n t e d  in f i e l d - 2 .  coherent  to c o n t r o l  & Rosenbaum,  is  used  o b j e c t s enough t o s u p p o r t  indications  make t h i s  i s able  the  of m o t i o n  happen u n t i l  target  Kahneman & Wolman,  location  illusion  s t a t u s , but  object.  motion  Which of  target-yoked  until  this  1967).  1968;  The  t h a t the  nature  because apparent  such  special  then  retroactive  to  onset:  i s d i s t i n g u i s h e d from the d i s t r a c t o r  effect  color  triangle-and-box  rise  t a r g e t o b j e c t has  T e r n u s e x p e r i m e n t makes t h e  1970;  the  t h a t t h e mechanism g i v i n g  stimulus  until  l a t e - c u e v e r s i o n of  fields.  In  by the  21 consistent as  the  condition,  target;  different  having  t h a n the  displayed.  on  consistent  congruity  preview  appeared  i n the  inconsistent condition target;  i n the  T h e r e was  a preview appear  greater Color  i n the  color  p r e v i e w was  the  trials  i s not  but  t h a n on  c a p a b l e of  i t appeared  in a  control condition  a large  in f i e l d - 1 ,  same c o l o r  RT  that  advantage  to  a d v a n t a g e was  inconsistent  supporting  no  an  no  trials.  object  ef f e c t . Visual  Search: A G e n e r a l i z a t i o n  In  a preview-like  moving-frame d i s p l a y , the  presence  contained vertical except On  of  experiment subjects  a plus  on  This  line  was  negative-perpendicular  each o b j e c t they  been  negative-parallel Although error longer  perpendicular  trials  the  line  object-specific This  true  trials  generalization  of  the  of of  the  four-object,  field-1  them c o n t a i n e d the  of  field-2  respond  a  within  formed a p l u s ;  i t took  plus.  that,  had  on  orientations.  significantly  the  negative-  negative-parallel  components of a  experiment  boxes  appearing  " a b s e n t " on  the  a  them c o n t a i n e d  lines  for  boxes  o r i e n t a t i o n s , so  differ,  t h a n on  the  Effect  t h e y were of p a r a l l e l  spatiotemporal  search  integration  two  when one  r a t e s d i d not to  of  t h e y would have  trials  for subjects  Evidently,  and  were of p e r p e n d i c u l a r  superimposed,  Object  involving a  Two  also  positive trials,  the  performed a v i s u a l search  ("+").  a horizontal line.  of  f i g u r e are  trials.  subject  to  integration.  represents  f i n d i n g of  to a d i f f e r e n t task.  an  important  object-specific In  the  letter  information reading  task  22 deployment  o f a t t e n t i o n may be q u i t e  the  task.  search  divided  attention—with  processing  that  integration the  Despite  letter  attention stimuli  the attendant  task  Notice,  relatively  slow  from in  focused  information  f o r example, that  that i n  subjects  follow  inconsistent  r e s p o n s e s whether  this  trials  they  object  subjects  target  identity will  be m i s - c u e d , and i n t h e l a t t e r  target  location will  be.  will  make r e l a t i v e l y  whenever  they  happen  identity  and t a r g e t effect"  spatiotemporal of  on  location will will  come a b o u t  information  reasoning  consistent  box--and  quick  trials,  responses  case  case  however,  because  object  be v a l i d l y  both  cued.  target  In s h o r t ,  not as a consequence of  used. f o r the p o s s i b i l i t y  when t h e s u b j e c t  that  s e l e c t s the d i s t r a c t o r  l o c a t i o n and i d e n t i t y a r e m i s c u e d - - r e s p o n s e s w i l l  s l o w e d down d r a s t i c a l l y  enough t o compensate  consistent  trials  box.  conservation-of-cost  This  notwithstanding, the  make  i n t e g r a t i o n , but as a s i d e e f f e c t  does not allow  trials  i n the former  t o s e l e c t the t a r g e t  the a t t e n t i o n a l strategy This  because  On c o n s i s t e n t  subjects  will  s e l e c t the t a r g e t  or the d i s t r a c t o r o b j e c t ,  "object  focus  to i t s  object  an  spatiotemporal  to  f i g u r e s a t the time t h e f i e l d - 1  and t h e n  On  changes  i t i s possible  on one o f t h e l i n e  location.  switch  to occur--the o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c  r e s u l t h o l d s up.  are presented  terminal  the probable  are l i k e l y  reading  d i f f e r e n t from t h a t i n  on w h i c h t h e s u b j e c t  be  the speed of the  s e l e c t s the target  counter-criticism  the s e l e c t - a n d - f o l l o w  hypothesis  i n t e g r a t i o n view u n d e r s c o r e s  r i v a l to  the p o t e n t i a l  23  for  confounding  case, to  the  the  The  Form of  what  special  form of  information  of  search  visual  measured w i t h  the  object-specific  the  result  implies  effect that  ever  of  was  the  the  produced  saw  see  need not  the  uncommonly  l a r g e amount of  than  It i s  be  literal  the the  of  case.  The  experiment  information--perhaps  of p e r c e p t s : nor  level  There  in a v e r t i c a l  i s no  one,  only  object-  i n terms of e r r o r r a t e s . able  This  to cause  the  Given s i g n a l - d e t e c t i o n  question  triangle  of g e n e r a l  when a s m a l l  level  I n t e r e s t i n g l y , no  object-specific  result  at  search  of whether  i s fundamentally  A  that  occurs  i n the  pluses. the  the  experiments.  moving o b j e c t s were not  pluses  f o r the  involve  task  this  two.  i s s u e of  information integration  reading  obtained.  speculate  applied  Effect  of a d i f f e r e n t  overlapping  With a d i s p l a y l i k e evidence  the  obtained  however, p e r h a p s  really  be  any  spatiotemporally  reading  in a h o r i z o n t a l l i n e ,  s u b j e c t s to a c t u a l l y theory,  letter  i n t e g r a t i o n of q u i t e  conjunction  specific  cannot  In  t h e s i s i s the  e x p e r i m e n t may  although  spatiotemporal  "plusness" in  i s being  letter  response generation,  even a  to t h i s  for instance, that  an  simply  i n the Object  information  i n t e g r a t e d i n the  possible,  Involved  significance  The  integration  suggests  attention strategies.  experiment.  Information  integrated.  that  selective  s e l e c t - a n d - f o l l o w account  search  Of  by  subjects  inappropriate. and  box  display,  i n t e g r a t i o n of words  interest  was  that  was  there  non-object-specific priming. s e t of  stimuli  are  u s e d , as  was  an KTG  in  24 the  letter  experiments,  a l l o f t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g nodes i n  l o n g - t e r m memory a r e kept of  the experiment,  repetition Under  and so t h e r e  priming that  field-1  facilitation nonspecific  priming.  is a ceiling  size  nonspecific  itself  fully  independence  trial.  cue o r l o n g -  and so d o m i n a t e s t h e  When a l a r g e  s e t of s t i m u l i  baseline  and so r e p e t i t i o n  as b e f o r e w i l l  priming.  l i m i t i n g the  on any g i v e n  priming  i s manifest  this  between o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c  in f u l l .  o f t h e same  now be d o m i n a t e d  If valid,  a r e used,  priming i s  Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , an o b j e c t e f f e c t absolute  the course  only the o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c  i n t h e word e x p e r i m e n t s ,  insignificant,  throughout  (and g i v e n an e a r l y  stimuli)  reveals  primed  c a n be g e n e r a t e d  these circumstances  duration  as  fairly  account  by t h e underscores the  facilitation  and node  priming. The  result  experiment less the  time  that  low-level  from  occurred at a l l .  through  words a r e h i g h - l e v e l  o f t h e word.  stimuli in  search  with the f i n d i n g experiment.  word may c o n f e r an RT  advantage  of l o w - l e v e l p e r c e p t u a l  i n f o r m a t i o n , d e c r e a s i n g response perceptibility  i n the  t h e g e n e r a t i o n o f an  i n the v i s u a l  the i n t e g r a t i o n  I t took  had been p r e v i e w e d i n  w i t h words i s n o t i n c o n s i s t e n t integration  t h e word  had been p r e v i e w e d  attributes,  p r e v i e w i n g of a t a r g e t  solely  word t h a t  one t h a t  Although  t h e y have s e m a n t i c effect  interest  an o b j e c t e f f e c t  t o read a t a r g e t  rectangle.  object  The  i s that  same r e c t a n g l e t h a n  other  of  of more s p e c i f i c  latency  by i n c r e a s i n g t h e  In keeping w i t h t h i s  view,  when  25 a  lexical  object  d e c i s i o n task  effect,  the  was  only  used  to t e s t  for a  truly-semantic  associative facilitation  produced  was  non-object-specific. Finally, the  another  information  that  experiment  i s spatiotemporally  objects a l s o supports perceptual was  very  rather  similar  experiment could of  the  to  that  i n e i t h e r upper  The  typical  letters  were p r e s e n t e d  the  These giving  last  or  semantic  the  occurring  the  the  present  object  effect.  was  display  Beller, the  when t h e y  were  its  not p h y s i c a l l y  disappeared.  experiments object  see  t a r g e t and  name—were  is  analysis  o b s e r v e d when  when t h e  moving  letters  ( f o r an  but  of  preview  stimulus  paradigm,  suggest  effect  attributes.  cannot The  that be  i n t e g r a t i o n of of  the  search  information  the  object  effect about  Spatiotemporal  certainly  the  between  information  letters.  experiment.  integration  produced  letter  t h e s i s further explore  spatiotemporal  the  cases,  effect  visual  exemplary  lower c a s e  p h y s i c a l information  i n the  experimental  same c a s e ;  spatiotemporal  of  The  i n the  physical characteristics  integration  of  two  to the  reflects the  object  i n t e g r a t e d by information  however or  form  this  i n the  effect  i n t e r m s of  rise  lexical  object  in different  preview--preview  that  in a priming  1971).  identical,  used  earlier,  this manipulation  presented  idea  than c a t e g o r i c a l .  described  appear  i n v e s t i g a t i n g the  seems t o  The  be  experiments  p h y s i c a l nature  integration underlying  the  of  26 Conclusions The v a r i o u s p r e v i e w demonstrated  spatiotemporal  information.  Two  basic  Banks and P r i n z m e t a l ' s and  "analysis"  Which figural  are  Become  relations  factor.  between  icon.  were  used  after  figures  propose  effects  studies  when t h e t a r g e t  that  i s the  parts  integrated?  by the the  critical  of a s i n g l e  parts  as moving  I t was  of d i f f e r e n t  preview line  object  experiments,  figures  and  RT e f f e c t s , g e n e r a t e d shown t h a t  grouping  were a l s o  objects.  and f o u n d t h a t  same o b j e c t  KTG  into objects  objects  obtained  involving  i s that  apparent  completely motion  fashioned  compared moving w i t h nonmoving effects  and p r e v i e w were n o t p r e s e n t e d  e v e n t h o u g h t h e y were  still  was  for confidence in  an e x p e r i m e n t  object-specific  line  or c u e i n g the  when a  reason  then  support  t h e s e moving  the s t i m u l i  A further  interpretation  t h e KTG  become  them.  Some of t h e d e s c r i b e d  not s i m p l y  to render  KTG's  i s determined  operationalization  object  stimuli  to  "parsing"  integrated  object-specific  Object  different  Which  comprising  this proposition.  figures  the  become  operationalizing  for  be a s k e d a b o u t  and t h o s e c o m p r i s i n g  are not.  loosely  Integrated?  Those s t i m u l i  demonstrating  corresponding  achieved?  of t h e s c e n e  integrated,  objects by  integration.  stimuli  organization  questions,  of v i s u a l  (1976) d i s t i n c t i o n between  i s the i n t e g r a t i o n  Which S t i m u l i  consistently  integration  i n p e r c e p t i o n , may  spatiotemporal How  experiments  singled  line  disappeared within  the  o u t by t h e  27 line  f i g u r e s that Consistent  framed  them.  Literature.  The  interpretation  i s enhanced by  supporting  general  field  the  into perceptual  plausibility  the  existence  contention u n i t s can  that  processing.  against  preattentive establishment  in  the  vision,  precedes  she  allows  i t s parts  intra-dimension  f o r the  i n the  parsing  of  g l o b a l groups that  to  i n t e r p r e t e d as  and  they  further  Kahneman's  formation"  stage  allocation  into  are  and  stage  coming  termed  process.  and  Hoffman  i n f l u e n c e d by Kahneman's  is basically  appears  the  i n the  early,  the  the  field  information  Gestalt  results  of  In  is  sensory before  an  attention  These  laws of  division  the  object,  early "unit  of  perceptual grouping,  physical  space  processing—notably outcome of  (1973) message  They  whole  1985).  after  information  (1973).  i s an  emphasis".  to the  the  t o which t h e  immediately  "figural  Subsequent  that  organization  single real-world  u n i t s a t an  and  subsequent  global  (Treisman,  immediately  storage,  emphasis--is  perception stimulus  added"  h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d with  formation Eriksen  be  formed a c c o r d i n g  objects.  figural  can  into perceptual  registration  and  place-holders  the  into potential objects.  (1973) model of p e r c e p t i o n ,  partitioned  u n i t s are  to a  of  (1982) a r g u e s  there  scene  object  work  on  formed d e l i n e a t e  belonging  " f u n c t i o n as processing  the  are  of  possibility  sense t h a t  the  organization  Although Treisman  Early be  of  have e f f e c t s  information  of  suggest  o r i e n t e d and,  visual  field,  unit  i s echoed  that  object  the  "visual  when a  a certain level  new of  by  28 gross processing prerequisite features An  and s t r u c t u r i n g of t h e s t i m u l a t i o n  t o more c a r e f u l s e l e c t i v e p r o c e s s i n g  of the s t i m u l a t i o n . "  perception.  the importance  He w r i t e s ,  and. i n t e g r a t e s  "Perception  successive  of d e t a i l e d  ( p . 159)  a n a l y s i s of v i s u a l masking p r o v i d e d  (1968) makes a p p a r e n t  isa  by Kahneman  of u n i t i z a t i o n i n lags a f t e r  stimulation  s t i m u l i i n t o composite chunks, or  moments...in w h i c h some e l e m e n t s may be o b l i t e r a t e d and others follows  altered."  (p.421)  In a t r e a t m e n t  Kahneman's i n some  important  of masking  respects,  1983a) d e s c r i b e s  masking  as a f a i l u r e  achieve  status"  (see Fowler, Wolford,  "figural  Tassinary,  1981).  conscious  recovery  commenting  on t h e p r e v i e w  Provided by  that  element  d i s p l a y s when he  more e c o n o m i c a l , description  expected,  i f elements  sets  itself  separated  c a n be  provides  a  or h i g h - l e v e l s t r u c t u r a l  t h a n e i t h e r o f t h e two o b j e c t i v e  element  sets,  factors  to achieve  other  be  writes:  then  from two o b j e c t i v e l y s e p a r a t e e v e n t  on t h e  Marcel could  subsets are not too  t o produce a f i g u r e which  (1983b,  Slade &  is clearly  information,  f a c t o r s s u c h as t i m e o r s p a c e ,  fused  Marcel  of t h e t a r g e t t o  A l t h o u g h h i s emphasis of p e r c e p t u a l  that  then  that  may  figural  outweigh status,  physical  l e a v i n g the  elements as ground, and thus u n r e c o v e r e d . (p.  265-266) • Banks and P r i n z m e t a l by  giving  subjects  (1976) measured p e r c e p t u a l  p i c t u r e s o f v i s u a l d i s p l a y s and  grouping asking  29 them t o draw b o u n d a r i e s a r o u n d number of variable  b o u n d a r i e s between two indexing  the  Banks and  Prinzmetal  detection  task,  stimuli  the  the  In  found  was  the  in a  particularly  striking  t a r g e t was  recall,  demonstration  the  i n t e r f e r e n c e p r o d u c e d by  item  the  end  recalled.  This  grouped apart perceptual An  Treisman the  list  the  from t h e . r e l e v a n t  noise  by  Henik  Stroop  concerned  these  (1981, perceptual  or v i s u a l  reduced items,  by  task.  A  suffix  an  irrelevant  items to  having  in a  They  filtering,  the  presenting  the  be  suffix  separate  unit.  of  and  processing  objects Burkell  presence  is visual  task  that  of d i s t r a c t o r s i n v o l v e s  deployment  of a t t e n t i o n even when t h e  automatic,  n o d e - m e d i a t e d one  Kahneman and  a  o b j e c t s and  the  i s the a l l e g e d l y s i n g l e word.  conception  (1983) f o u n d t h a t  response  events d i s r u p t  task  reading  a spatial  s e l e c t i o n of  Burkell  of  choice  i n t e r f e r e n c e , or  I r r e l e v a n t o b j e c t s and  i s c o n s i s t e n t with the  Kahneman,  (1983) d e m o n s t r a t e t h a t  cost".  emphasizing  h i g h l i g h t s the  filtering.  "filtering  finding  grouped with  involving  of a u d i t o r y  i n t e r f e r e n c e was  information  importance  in  of a  visual  early processing.  and  the  stimuli,  t h a t a t t e n t i o n a c t s on  effect, at  the  forced choice  in experiments  immediate  Using  independent  i n t e r f e r e n c e produced  hypothesis  effects  search,  an  i s o l a t i o n , of  o b j e c t s — e s t a b l i s h e d by  grouping  visual  more the  as  r e l a t e d work, Kahneman and  t e s t e d the  units—or  that  groups p r e s e n t .  stimuli  perceptual found  greater  distractors. 1977)  the  events.  This  of a t t e n t i o n Treisman,  when a word and  a  30 distractor was  frame were i n t e g r a t e d  reduced.  effectively unit.  by  the  but  objects local  or  and  "the  s u c h as  called  the  McKoon,  logogen  as  a single of  (p.  not  530)  manipulation  regions  in  the  that  into unified by  proximity  and  similarity,  but  also  by  other  elements  f i n d i n g that that  i t i s the  field. stimuli  become i n t e g r a t e d  this  has  usual  accounts  accommodated  b o a r d m o d e l s can  by  1975;  s y s t e m , however, d o e s not  what has  figural  easily as  Morton,  (nb.  Ratcliff  &  represent  nodes  1969).  or The  temporary  r e l a t i o n s between  episodes  been  pre-activation  concept  include  of  (Kahneman &  facilitation  network of  & Loftus,  two  o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c i t y of  w i t h the be  in the  r e l a t e d a l t e r n a t i v e s (eg.  l e s s permanent  perceptual  used  (1981) o b s e r v a t i o n of  with  only  non-object-specific  particular  Consistent  not  Display  denoting  retinal  achieved  by  structures  in  distance.  be  I t cannot  (Collins  spatial  are  can  First,  1984), nor  perceptual  attention  j u s t by  " d i s p l a y b o a r d model of mind"  a more or  "logogens"  more  linking  i s inconsistent  1981).  standard,  frame were p r o c e s s e d  143),  a s i n g l e object  effects:  Treisman,  in  (p.  The  implications.  priming  cost  is defined  perceptual  surfaces"  facilitation  not  i s Pomerantz's  f a c t o r s concerning  comprising  filtering  p a r t i c u l a r object  Implications.  major  grouping,  'belongingness'." the  group,  objects  in  factors  global  "The  interference  research  grouping,  the  of  s u c c e s s of  preview  state,  perceptual  gradient  distance  word and  one  when t h e y were d i s p l a y e d  These a u t h o r s  defined The  B o t h the  as  Tulving,  stimuli 1972,  on  during  31 s e m a n t i c memory). logogens  simply  attributes field-1 board an  count  are  equally  (1969) e x p l i c i t l y  of  be  the  irrelevant.  preview  completely  potent  states  a t t r i b u t e s - - t h e o r i g i n s of  considered  letters  should  Morton  With  paradigm,  egalitarian:  prime w h i c h e v e r  line  that  those  respect  then,  a  to  the  display  A preview  should  f i g u r e happens  be  to  surround i t . S e c o n d , a more b a s i c object-specificity paradigm  i s that  perceptual  facilitation  cognitive  organization.  i n t e r a c t s with  the  importance  of  recognized  since  the  1935;  consider  objects,  conceptualizing  The  and  perceptual  the  1969). their  stimulus  can  processing  t i m e of  drawn  generated  in perceptual  Kohler,  t o be  organization  cognitive  objects  (Koffka,  as  of  conclusion  from  i n the reflect  that  I t now  an  object  object.  organization  Gestalt  preview  h i s t o r y of of  the  has  The  been  psychologists  seems p r u d e n t  visual histories,  to  when  i n t e r a c t i o n s in c o g n i t i v e  processing  well. This  a context close  i m p l i c a t i o n of of  other  relation  Ramachandran ( c f . Gregory, functions  the  research  (1981) s p e c u l a t e s 1980)  not  called  higher  cognitive  really  just elaborations  because  On  but  and  that  that  fits  there  well can  perception  rather  be  is  a l e s s extreme note,  a  intelligent  cognitive  because  these  so-  i n c l u d i n g reasoning,  low-level  into  cognition.  inferential  functions, of  research  suggesting  between p e r c e p t i o n  guide perception,  perception.  preview  operations S h e p a r d and  are  like Podgorny  32 (1978) r e v i e w  a number o f p a r a d i g m s t h a t  between p e r c e p t u a l of  and c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s i n g .  S h e p a r d ' s own m e n t a l  1971;  b u t see Y u i l l e  possibility mental The  r o t a t i o n paradigm  & Steiger,  i s raised that  conclusions  (1978) a r e t h a t a d v a n c e s will  a l s o be a d v a n c e s  aspects  connected  theory  and  one o f r e l e v a n c e  preview it  paradigm,  i n our u n d e r s t a n d i n g we s h o u l d  of a t l e a s t  be s u s p i c i o u s o f any  between p e r c e p t i o n  f o r there  component  o f memory t h a t episodic  1977) d e s c r i b e s  that  history effect  o f memory.  probably  perceptual  Theoretically,  t o be c o n s i s t e n c y  stores perceptual  episodes.  t h e former as the s t o r a g e  faithful  episodes"  record  of  In  1972).  Tulving's  episodic-semantic  of events i n Episodic  ( p . 3 9 8 ) , and i t s o r g a n i z a t i o n  McKoon and R a t c l i f f  spatiotemporal  (1972;  temporally  mimics the o r g a n i z a t i o n of the i n i t i a l  that  between t h e  from s e m a n t i c memory, T u l v i n g  (Tulving,  contend  of the  and t h e s t r u c t u r e o f a t l e a s t t h e  i s a "more o r l e s s  organized  i s not  and c o g n i t i o n ,  terms o f p e r c e p t i b l e p r o p e r t i e s a n d a t t r i b u t e s . memory  some  of p e r c e p t i o n .  t o the v i s u a l  of p e r c e p t i o n  distinguishing  of perception  of c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s i n g  structure  Neely,  drawn by S h e p a r d a n d P o d g o r n y  i s the concept  would make sense  underlying  i n our u n d e r s t a n d i n g  connection  & Metzler,  1982) t h e i n t e r e s t i n g  to a p l a u s i b l e theory  A strong  (Shepard  m o t i o n a r e one a n d t h e same.  of c o g n i t i o n , and t h a t  comprehensive  parallels  In a d i s c u s s i o n  the representations  r o t a t i o n and a p p a r e n t  two g e n e r a l  reveal  percept  (1979), a r g u i n g  distinction,  against  go f a r t h e r and  r e l a t i o n s are important  even i n  33 tasks that  using the  semantic  suffix  perception grouping  and  i n the  percept  example  can  of  (1979) p o i n t s  convergence  i t demonstrates  affect  " p a c k a g e d " and  (1979,  stroboscopic  perception of any time  i s an  Treisman  the  way  retrieved  that  items  out  between physical  in  short-  (Kahneman & H e n i k ,  1977). Johansson  (eg.  effect  memory b e c a u s e  term memory a r e 1981,  information.  spatial  Construed  quality this  information  punctuated  The on  the  Johansson  act  a circuit  t o the  to  give  rise  an  "Such d e m o n s t r a t i o n s c a n span of  angular  saying  i s not  spatial  information  as  perceptual  a c t and  'remembering' as A particularly studying  the  that  w e l l as  interesting  perception  of  an  object  primary and  &  to  be  Schultz,  illustration  the  moving q u i c k l y enough i n  show t h a t simple This  of  i t s motion  within a  i s an  a  perception  certain  argument of  single in fact  'recording'."  theoretical  path.  p h y s i c a l motions  conservation  t i m e as  change  a  given  temporal  Eriksen  perception  experience over  change as  considered  (also  velocities,  t h a t we  over a  f o r m of memory,  evoke a u n i t a r y e x p e r i e n c e . for  position,  for  perception  jjs a  (1979) o f f e r s of  i s the  t o have a  events  endeavor  with  time d i m e n s i o n  hallowed demonstration  or  of  way,  i s considered  perceptual  study  appropriate  perception  dimension, perception  extension.  1978).  the  Event  in quantity,  interval.  recommends t h e  m o t i o n ) as  researchers.  change  stimulus  1983)  (p.  is 98)  consequence  of  i s that a previous  stimulus  34 and  a subsequent  stimulus that  an  stimulus  (Gibson, object's  might  1959), w h i c h  be  thought  of  is consistent  v i s u a l h i s t o r y may  have  as  a  single  w i t h the  notion  cognitive  consequences. How  Is the That  Integration the  information follows  as  documented  involves  easily  literature.  although  responsible appears to  though  this  and  this  some f a c t s a b o u t  has  conclusion  been  stimulus  integrated  t o be only  Object  Files.  object-specific  this  the  thesis  1981).  The  the  Finally,  the  s e l e c t i o n of  target  has  been  idea mentioned at  i n the of  the  beginning  of  Kahneman & H e n i k , to.  ( c f . Treisman,  a perceptual  representation  of  integration  according  field  the  presented.  information  established  is  is retroactive,  A p l a u s i b l e d e s c r i p t i v e account  file,  same  t o o p e r a t e when  attention  1984;  occurs  i n the  way  target  continuity  episodic  integration  a d i f f e r e n t object,  the  file  not  integration  predecessor  on  is  the  (Kahneman & T r e i s m a n , object  the  seems not  focused  the  mechanism  the  with  cognitive counterpart  temporary  time;  recent  spatiotemporal  object  spatiotemporal is  once t h e  the  with  role,  i s achieved  discussed,  depends on  manipulated.  involves  As  i t s most  experimentally  occurring  integration  i n t e g r a t i o n mechanism  attention  in a central  is consistent  take a c e r t a i n f i n i t e  the  selective  how  i n t e g r a t i o n of  objects  d a t a and  were u n c o v e r e d .  between a t a r g e t object;  spatiotemporal  perceptual  from t h e  Exactly  evident,  Achieved?  object.  i n t o which the  1985), It  is a  information  35 accumulating  about a p a r t i c u l a r  what g i v e s  objects  B e c a u s e an  object  psychologically also  thought  Kahneman, entered  s u c h as are  file  as  i n an  perceptual  i s a u n i t of  opposed  of as  1968  ultimately  their  Marcel,  object  file  the  l a b e l s f o r the  subject  object's  h i s t o r y may  be  Rather,  itself  the  gives  i t .  sensory,  i t i s the  corresponding  memory, that  is  some r e c o r d  the  of  e n t r i e s need  c o n t i n u i t y of object  is  may  responses  although  none of  that  but  information  and  be  1974;  from l o n g - t e r m  Filed  kept,  i t might  information  o b j e c t , and  to updating,  remain c o n s t a n t . that  input  i t is  defined  (Simon,  The  and  coherence.  information  "chunk"  1983b).  include conceptual  continually  u n i t y and  is initially  a p p r o p r i a t e l y made t o  i s entered,  to c o n v e n t i o n a l l y ,  a perceptual  and  semantic  object  the  file  i t s perceptual  identity. Given objects  that  and  events,  sense, q u i t e of  the  the  associated with  paradigms that  late  1984).  s e l e c t i o n by  s e l e c t i o n by  relatively  file  c o n s i s t s of  f o r the  different  response  entry  of  The  s e t , might  orderly  It also  experimental  results  set  in  filtering  i s more  obtain  information  the  i n t o the  object  In a d d i t i o n , t h e  " h e a d i n g " of  the  be  object's  and  coordinates,  these  and  other  spatial  such s e n s o r y  temporal  file  efficient  b e c a u s e of  file. the  collation  objects.  result  stimulus  semantic  coherent  metaphor makes good  accommodates a number of  (Kahneman & T r e i s m a n ,  than  object  n a t u r a l l y accounting  information  successfully  phenomenal w o r l d  i s construed and  so  a t t r i b u t e s would n a t u r a l l y be  to  36 the  most  severity  efficient  e n t r i e s by  of  i n t e r f e r e n c e , and  attention but  not  can  be  d i v i d e d between  between d i f f e r e n t  Burkell,  1983;  assumption (cf.  Stroop  Duncan,  that  w h i c h t o s e l e c t the  1983).  & Schmidt,  elegantly  m o d e l l e d as m i s f i l i n g s  afford  limitations.  a middle  camps can  that  buildup  of  by  present  physical  f o r the  s t r u c t u r e of  invariant  was  be  (Posner,  object the  Object  1978).  (albeit  be  i n t e r a c t i o n between p i e c e s  between  within  the  late  are  quite  to time  selection it is  file,  be  late  leaving  file  logically  file  the  conceptualization  are  are  not  nodes  board separate  at a l l l i k e flexible  is rigid  e f f e c t s are  framework.  and  and  not  I t seems  necessary) that of  from  there  in d i f f e r e n t  would  information  same o r g a n i z a t i o n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  those contained  or  even  in that  They a r e  reasonable  contained  units  s e l e c t i o n could  files  within  not  as  1980) due  display  surprising  greater  object  files  from t h e  O b j e c t - s p e c i f i c RT the  simple  c o n c e p t may  early  whereas a n e t w o r k of  concept-oriented.  object  preattentively.  reasons  not.  which  conjunctions  e a r l y and  s e m a n t i c memory, and  pathways  object-oriented  very  the  object  file  output  to occur  the  features  features;  the  purposes,  conceptualization the  object  with  Kahneman &  & Gelade,  of  Selection could  information  apposite  Treisman  The  i t a f f e c t s only  For is  only  from  Illusory  g r o u n d where t h e  meet:  controlled in  1982;  The  of a s i n g l e  (Treisman,  follows  (Treisman  facility  parts  a t t e n t i o n o p e r a t e s on  Kahneman & C h a j c z y k ,  resource  the  objects  1984),  the  file.  representations.  than For  37 example, of  one o f t h e many p o s s i b l e r e a s o n s  a processing  required to  contingency  t o change an e n t r y  register  provides  Although  a satisfactory  level,  be t h a t more r e s o u r c e s a r e  t o a new v a l u e  a l a c k o f change  Re-Viewing.  one  might  (eg. A to A ) ,  the object  description  file  of the e f f e c t .  KTG d e s c r i b e  between a t a r g e t and p r e v i e w  object  as r e - v i e w i n g .  the p a r t i a l  stimulus. previous  viewing  re-processing  stimulus  as t h e c u r r e n t  occurs  preferentially  within  of a s t i m u l u s  important  way—a  In o t h e r  t o the  words, r e -  as o p p o s e d  t o between  files.  evoked  by t h e t a r g e t a r e t h e same, t h e i n f o r m a t i o n a l  Garner,  1974).  Rumelhart's instead  previous  may  (1981) i n t e r a c t i v e  levels,  stimulus  may  processing  This process  of i n f o r m a t i o n  conceptual  effect  facilitates  i t may  treatments  and t h e p r e v i o u s  of the c u r r e n t  and  but  and lower  c a s c a d e between a c u r r e n t and  i n the o b j e c t  file.  In s h o r t ,  be a c a s e o f o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c  information  process,  between h i g h e r  letter  letter (cf.  resemble M c C l e l l a n d  activation  cascading  R e - v i e w i n g does not s t a n d retroactive  letter  will  relevant  object  redundancy  When t h e t a r g e t  of  t h e same  i s by b e l o n g i n g  stimulus.  f o r the  the process  of a p r e v i o u s ,  can be r e l e v a n t ,  effect at  accounts  within  The p r o c e s s i n g  One way--perhaps t h e most  same o b j e c t  formulation  of the o b j e c t  interaction  cause  ( e g . A t o B) t h a n  an e l a b o r a t i o n c a n be added t h a t  retroactivity  file  f o r the existence  alone  processing.  of p e r c e p t u a l - c o g n i t i v e  the object  re-viewing.  as an example o f Several  recent  information  reference  38 mechanisms have e m p h a s i z e d information Jacoby  (Feustel, S h i f f r i n  & Brooks,  Feustel, stimulus  in press;  Shiffrin  identification distinction  when a word  memory.  or l e x i c a l  that  identification  i s modeled  of  et a l . ' s  identification  which  (1981).  process progresses,  episodes,  1969).  findings  like  that  with  i n the e p i s o d i c  back t o t h e p e r c e p t u a l  p r o p o s e d by  The c r i t i c a l  i n both  assertion  a s t h e word  i t r e c r u i t s from memory but a l s o  images".  the t a r g e t  to the extent  stimulus  and i n c r e a s e s  temporal-  The s t o r e d  images a n d s e m a n t i c  level  as a  A c t i v a t i o n spreads  i s that,  t o be  Word  researchers  information  or " e p i s o d i c  i t i s associated  However,  identification  i s r e c r u i t e d or a c t i v a t e d according  Activation  t o be a  and o t h e r  levels.  (1983) model  lexical/semantic  contextual material  by t h e s e  processing  results  t h e r e p e t i t i o n e f f e c t even  i n t e r a c t i v e process  across  The  performance that  f o r i n d i v i d u a l episodes.  directions  only  i s no s t r u c t u r a l  and s e m a n t i c memory.  interpret this  and R u m e l h a r t  not  there  (eg. Morton,  of  i s b a s e d on word  i s usually considered  effect  McClelland  Feustel  model  the recruitment  t h e r e p e t i t i o n e f f e c t i n word  depends upon memory  hierarchical  involves  Their  e t a l . (1983) o b t a i n e d They  in press).  (1983) p r o p o s e a model o f  identification  i s repeated,  w i t h nonwords. evidence  & Salasoo  experiments suggesting  o f word  1983; K o r i a t , 1981;  Kahneman & M i l l e r ,  between e p i s o d i c  facilitation  Feustel  & Salasoo,  r e p e t i t i o n e f f e c t s that  images f r o m e p i s o d i c  semantic  the backward a c c e s s i n g of  to  and  context.  units  spreads  the e x c i t a t i o n of  39 consistent  feature d e t e c t o r s , thereby  a n a l y s i s o f t h e t a r g e t word. facilitates  episodic  images; i f t h e s t i m u l u s  will  implication  the l i n e s  that  by p e r c e p t u a l  depends on t h e i r Koriat associates  r o l e s i n the v i s u a l  (1981) p r e s e n t s  evidence  (Rouse and V e r i n i s ,  versa.  Koriat just out  backward p r i m i n g .  as s t r o n g  priming  as p r i m i n g  alternatives possibility  i s that  history  of t h a t  of p r i m i n g c f . Kiger  by  partly  target.  backward  & Glass,  t o the p r i m e but n o t  t o word a s s o c i a t i o n  a lexical  forward result  than  would d e c i s i o n task,  associates.  with  He  points  spreading  1975) and d i s c u s s e s  backward p r i m i n g .  the priming  prime i s not indexed  of a t a r g e t  backward a s s o c i a t e s t o be  & Loftus,  c o n s i s t e n t with  be s u b j e c t t o  t o prime black  with  with  (Collins  t o the  a s s o c i a t e of b l a c k  Using  the i n c o n s i s t e n c y of t h i s theory  may  framework  Perhaps which e p i s o d i c  t h e t a r g e t word  so f o r b o a r d  (1981) f o u n d  activation  and  then  a unidirectional associative  i s a much s t r o n g e r  i s of board,  constitute  1962;  F o r example, a c c o r d i n g  norms, b o a r d black  of  information i s  leads  the p r o c e s s i n g  1983), w h i c h a r e words h a v i n g  vice  effect  organization.  during  that connects  episodic  of p e r c e p t i o n  the r e p e t i t i o n  images a r e r e c r u i t e d  relation  happens t o be a word,  (1972) a s s e r t i o n t h a t  along  influence  b e c a u s e of t h e r e c r u i t m e n t  C o m b i n i n g F e u s t e l e t a l . ' s (1983)  Tulving's  organized  processing  of a  be an a d d i t i o n a l a d v a n t a g e of s e m a n t i c  association. with  the perceptual  Thus, the r e p e t i t i o n  stimulus  there  speeding  relation  between  two  One the t a r g e t  by i t s a s s o c i a t i v e r e l a t i o n ,  and i s  40 in  fact  shift  symmetric.  hypothesis  distance going  in either  symmetry  locations  The  give r i s e  effects.  Rouse and  however,  attended  direction.  processes  association  & Schvaneveldt's  r e p r e s e n t s such  between two  different  by  Meyer  (1962);  because  i n LTM  the  i s the  t o the  the  forward  and  is similar  important  same  i s that backward  to that  taken  difference,  i s t h a t i n K o r i a t ' s (1981) " d o u b l e - t a k e  the p r o c e s s  location  other p o s s i b i l i t y  T h i s approach  Verinis  (1971)  u n d e r l y i n g t h e backward e f f e c t  hypothesis"  i s genuinely  retroact ive. In t h e and  an  double-take  automatic  lexical  (Posner  mechanism g i v e s r i s e  (cf.  the  to forward  1980).  The  backward a s s o c i a t i v e of p r i m e s r e l a t e d retroactive  simple  there  further  and  is fully  parallel  with  expectation backward and  the  to the  prime  this  assumptions are  target in l e x i c a l  and  that  can  p r o c e s s i n g of  only  begins  before  (a) t h a t decision, effects, the  i t i s able to occur Although  stages  of  in  forward  target  take p l a c e a f t e r  the t a r g e t .  to  reactivation  With respect to  reactivation  the e a r l y  reactivation  partial  It  mechanism g i v e s r i s e  requisite  target processing.  affects  attentional  operation s u s c e p t i b l e to context  processed  in  priming.  I t i n v o l v e s the  of t h e  attentional  effects  The  targets related  target.  encoding  1975b).  associative  automatic  two  (b) t h a t t h e p r o p o s e d  target  of  priming.  to the  effect  beyond t h e is a  & Snyder,  anticipation  Becker,  i s an  mechanism u n d e r l y i n g c o n t e x t  decision  involves  formulation there  encoding, the  display  41 Along there  are  with  the  several  major c o n c l u s i o n  other  double-take hypothesis prime-target  relatedness  target  can  relation  be  to  posteriori be  present.  by  one  will  of  probability  to  t o be the  This  to  effect,  judged  be  the  are  (1981) l i s t s  association formulation.  an  That  other  associates  of  i t is also  (a) The  critical  norms.  of  that  i s what  a  would  are a  priori the  a  second  i s known  that  but  once  better  notes  of  word  m i g h t have been  that  this  information  reminiscent  word  i s the  associates,  base-rate  decision  unseen  i r r e l e v a n t to  of  may in  the  i t i s known, i s a given  event  (Fischhoff,  hypotheses concerning  e f f e c t in l e x i c a l  a  i s , the l i k e l i h o o d  outcome, once  event  i s the  intensive  word—even Koriat  of  This  d e g r e e of  associate  of  ignored.  five  relation  completely  to a given  initial  a prime.  the  a more p r o b a b l e c o n s e q u e n t  i s when o n l y  types  word when b o t h  influence  i n w h i c h an  two  t o w h i c h an  judge the  target  disregard  judgments;  hindsight  the  of  study  The  t e s t i n g operations  availability  i n response  analogous  Koriat  and  as  are  word a s s o c i a t i o n  words.  generated  there  degree  basis  subjects  present,  associates--seem  it  the  by  words but  the  (1981)  to e a r l y encoding  a p o s t e r i o r i relatedness.  depend on  to  of  associates the  b o t h words a r e  be  the  encoding  asking  word b e i n g  generated  on  between a p r i m e and  relatedness  of  words, or  i s captured  later  Other  d e g r e e of  Pertinent  relatedness  captured  relation  suggests that  predicted  i s what  Pertinent  of  Koriat's  interesting implications.  relation.  priori  of  than  1982).  the  follow  relations will  from be  his  42 different  f o r the  Inhibition (c)  should  forward  predict should  the  of  an  be  effects  the  operate  should  are  i n f l u e n c e on  high  only  as a  forward  produced  only  validity.  (d)  of  generated  after  the  the  backward c o n t e x t  m o d e l s have an The  explosion  a  that  a problem  faces  p o t e n t i a l for  forward,  that effects  Because recognition  should than  have  on  information  that  in fact  re-viewing  any  specific  the  turns  seems w e l l  object  facilitation,  prime.  Only  the  target object  b e c a u s e the stimulus  shows the  less  forward  n a t u r a l on  object  files  alone  within  a representation  one  of  In  out  re-viewing  the  i s important. designed  information,  would be  view  inert?  t o be  the  target field-1  object  Is  t o evoke i t s  stimulus  This  presented  possibly acts  recency  forward  between  effect  accumulation  is in  i t plausible that,  f o r the  doubt  paradigm,  i s object-  i s able  on-going  a l l e n t r i e s but No  process  preview  effect,  to  relevant.  a  there  is  needs  mechanism o n l y  that  with  process  which o n l y  s u i t e d as  a s i n g l e predecessor.  perhaps l e s s  accumulation  i f the  most r e c e n t  perceptual and  effect.  as  comes  expectancy-type  non-object-specific priming,  recent  and  combinatorial  besides  a  primes  initial  economy t h a t  of  the  effect,  (e)  effects  explanation  in  (b)  Backward  target  f o r a backward p r o c e s s ,  Specifically,  own  by  attention.  q u a l i t y of  backward a c c e s s i n g .  access  backward p r o c e s s e s .  effects.  Retroactive  not  the  be  independently  target, visual  context  and  obtained  target with  backward e f f e c t s of  forward  the  s i n g l e most  f o r m a l l y a l l the  results  43 that  c a n be e x p l a i n e d  object  files  obtained viewing object  alone.  by r e - v i e w i n g c a n a l s o But p a r t i c u l a r l y  reflects  that  thesis  presenting  are best structure The a rather  the e m p i r i c a l  the r e -  character  of the  the t h e s i s issues  viewed  i n c o n t e x t by r e t r a c i n g  which  the target  it  i s previewed  appears  i n another  than  This  i s a fact,  issues  the i n f e r e n t i a l  t i m e t a k e n t o name a  i n a moving i n that line  o f RT i s g r e a t e r  figure  These  with a  of the preview paradigm i s  On a v e r a g e ,  i s previewed  line  to deal  paradigm.  f o r the i n f e r e n c e s  if  facilitation  i t i s appropriate before  i n a more c o n c e p t u a l way.  simple f i n d i n g .  letter  o f t h e work p r e s e n t e d i n  experiments themselves  of the preview basis  Issues  origin  has been d i s c u s s e d ,  central  target  of the r e s u l t s  effect.  Now  few  w i t h by  experiment,  the r e t r o a c t i v e  Conceptual  this  in light  with the Ternus apparent motion idea a p t l y  be d e a l t  same  figure.  demonstrated  figure  i s less  line  figure  than i f  That i s ,  for letter  i t i s for repetitions  line  repetitions  between  in a large  number  line  within a figures.  of p r e v i e w  experiments. This  fact  t a k e s on g r e a t e r  coupled with the o b j e c t figure  i m p o r t a n c e a s soon a s i t  assumption,  and i t s c o n t e n t s r e p r e s e n t s  psychologically intuitive Although  real  way.  that  e a c h moving  an o b j e c t  Such an a s s u m p t i o n  line  in a has s t r o n g  a p p e a l , b u t i t i s an a s s u m p t i o n n o n e t h e l e s s . line  figures  have been c o n s i d e r e d  valid  object  is  44 delimiters 1983),  within  (Duncan,  experimental  ( T r e i s m a n , Kahneman & B u r k e l l ,  such  line  One r e a s o n  i n the preview  Following object-effect  paradigm  immediately  within  paradigm  assumption However,  i s that  will  another  n o t i n v o l v i n g moving  o f RT e f f e c t s as t h o s e  from  the object  assumption  c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n of the r e s u l t s :  between o b j e c t s . preview  assumption  figures.  naming RT by t a r g e t  repetitions  as a s i n g l e  the object  i n s t a n t i a t i o n of 'object'  by t h e l i n e  letter  f i g u r e s and any i t e m s  them a r e n o t a l l p e r c e i v e d  f i g u r e s p r o d u c e d t h e same s o r t  produced  of  that  1984).  seems r e a s o n a b l e  line  research  i t i s possible  displayed object  i n other  an o b j e c t  Facilitation  r e p e t i t i o n i s greater f o r than  One a c c o u n t  i t i s for repetitions  that  r e s u l t s while be d i s c u s s e d  c a n make  sense of the  r e j e c t i n g the object  i n the General  Discussion.  i t i s the o b j e c t - e f f e c t c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n that  t o be t h e most n a t u r a l . also consistent perceptual  Recall  with other  i s the  that  research  this  seems  characterization i s  i n d i c a t i n g that  u n i t i z a t i o n can i n f l u e n c e  subsequent  information  processing. The  object  object's is  dynamic v i s u a l h i s t o r y .  simply  results them.  e f f e c t c a n be v i e w e d a s an e f f e c t of a moving  that,  a metaphor--not  but perhaps u s e f u l Using  t h e term  The v i s u a l h i s t o r y metaphor required  is crucial  research  t o t h e humans t r y i n g t o u n d e r s t a n d  " h i s t o r y " communicates a  even a p o s s e s s i v e n e s s — a p p r o p r i a t e What  by t h e  to the object  to the object  specificity— effect.  e f f e c t i s n o t m e r e l y whether a  45 preview appeared distance the  of a t a r g e t  preview  belong had  within  a certain spatial  stimulus.  was s p a t i a l l y  effect  only  Preview  events o c c u r r i n g  somehow  maintain  cognitive that  processing  captures  object  is  quite  effect,  histories  effect.  underlying  which can i n f l u e n c e the i s a descriptive  of t h e o b j e c t  the i n f e r e n t i a l  with  I t i s proposed effect  that  (a) t h e mechanism  functions  to integrate  integration  occurs  retroactively.  information object at  with  examples of o t h e r models.  i s what prompted  t h e peak o f t h e i n f e r e n t i a l  paradigm. information  Reasons  (b) t h i s f o r viewing  a s a r e t r o a c t i v e phenomenon were  processing  effect  interpretation  t h e a c t u a l m e c h a n i c s of t h e  s p a c e and t i m e , and t h a t  along  I f re-viewing  f i n d i n g as  s t r u c t u r e of t h e p a r a d i g m  across  discussed  device  effect.  farther reaching  in dealing  were  objects  of c h a r a c t e r i z i n g the preview  the object  effect  objects,  moving  information  object  the t a r g e t .  other  that  of those o b j e c t s  s t r a i g h t forward;  becomes n e c e s s a r y object  but c o n c e r n i n g  the essence  Up t o t h e p o i n t an  containing  Thus, the idea  visual  i s , a preview  a t t h e same t i m e and a t t h e same  from t h e t a r g e t ,  as i n f l u e n t i a l .  That  so as t o  i f i t c o n s t i t u t e d an e v e n t - i n t h e  of the p a r t i c u l a r o b j e c t  not  i s whether  located  as t h e t a r g e t .  history  distance  is crucial  and t e m p o r a l l y  t o t h e same o b j e c t  i t sf u l l  What  and t e m p o r a l  the  already  retroactive  The r e t r o a c t i v e n a t u r e the re-viewing  of t h e  model, which i s  s t r u c t u r e of the preview  i s the a p i c a l i n f e r e n c e ,  i n t e g r a t i o n i s the f o u n d a t i o n a l  one.  then This  notion  46 was  ubiquitous  deeper  i n the  d i s c u s s i o n of  As  is  a rule,  explicit  field,  or  implicit  to other  which  construction. absent  that  the  through the  of  information  i s produced  The  full  by  and  concept  of  itself  alternatives,  and  information  of  semantic  search  entities  be  The  term  the  case  made  Indeed,  the  is  idea  the  of  interaction  been. s o r t of  i n t e g r a t i o n suggests a  i n t o a w h o l e , or a between  i s constrained  by  i n t o a u n i t , or p e r h a p s  t o be  distinguishing  never  can  i n c l u d e s an have  the  memory,  f o r meaning  information. on  in  mental  i t i s almost  cognitive interaction  the  unitization.  different organization  i f their  i t makes s e n s e t o c o n s i d e r  of  interaction the  an i n t e g r a t i o n .  Unfortunately,  information  what c o u l d  of p a r t s  a u n i t , then  interaction  to  i s based  implicitly  interaction.  entities  creates  act  that  integration implies a p a r t i c u l a r  together  i f the  so  i s and  Information  bringing  an  stimulus  elsewhere  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of a s t i m u l u s to other  information  relating  which o c c u r s  human t e n d e n c y  information  interactive.  to a  from p e r c e p t i o n ,  between what  is highly  response a p p r o p r i a t e  some r e f e r e n c e  those  deserves  Integration  processing  without  Thus,  work and  i s r e t r i e v e d from e p i s o d i c or  perhaps which  not  Information  information  often determined only  stimulus  or  KTG  treatment. Spatiotemporal  The  the  without  information  interaction  can  a very  clear definition  i n t e g r a t i o n from o t h e r become a  r a t h e r empty  of  types  unit, of  exercise.  47 This  i s not  processing for  to  t o be  there  to  views  the  inputs that  broader that,  stimuli  information each  stimulus  level  domain.  cases  as  collapse into  In the formal  cannot,  preview  definition  the  use  of  This  was  a priori  a strong as  perception—like thesis--that hindsight enhanced  the  inferred  what can  term  a  sequence  any  serves  level,  be  case  as  with  one the  across  a  recognized  rather of  than information  i n t e g r a t i o n , and  count  from  from the one  the  l a c k of a  as  so  the  s o r t of  preview  at  real-life  i t seems f a i r  interaction  beginning  had  stimuli  presented  in separate  line  stimuli  presented  in a single line  The  f e a t s of  of  that i f  been d i s c o v e r e d  f i g u r e s i n s t e a d of such  this  dangers  to assert  figure,  there  relevant  o p e n i n g Of  research.  what  genuinely  were t h e  the  strict  a u n i t and  very  objects  described  notwithstanding,  the  i n t e g r a t i o n seems  sense t h a t  i n s p i r e d the  information  that  one.  i s because  i s apparent  as  operates  i t should  information  of  the  next  chain  paradigm, d e s p i t e  meaningful.  units,  the  i n the  However,  a c a s e of  information  integrate  r e s u l t a n t which  i t i s p o s s i b l e to c l a s s i f y  interaction  (1981),  operation s i m p l i f y i n g  because c o g n i t i v e u n i t s are  observed,  to  processing  i n t e g r a t i o n at  each higher  Anderson  t o human  tendency  into a unitary  t o the  information  f o r m c o g n i t i v e u n i t s , and  behavioral  integration operations,  result  and  He  integrative.  rudimentary  capacity  exists a basic  multiple  two  i t i s wrong t o c o n s i d e r  essentially  i s the  information.  of  that  example, b e l i e v e s t h a t  processing  of  say  between between  interaction  48 would n o t have been g l i b l y there  i s nothing  barring  one from  information  interaction  unitization  and t h e r e f o r e  that  the i n t e g r a t i o n  information paradigm the  object not  from  units  that  i s one o f i n f o r m a t i o n but i t i s a l s o (a) t h e f i n d i n g  constrained,  this  further  It  follows  interaction, i s object  characterization  of o b j e c t s  as potent  than  itself.  perceptual  t o the preview paradigm, c o n s i d e r i n g  efficient  and a f f o r d s  the  integration i s  an i m p o r t a n t  basis for  analysis.  O b j e c t s and t h e The  f o r the i s therefore  interaction  e f f e c t the r e s u l t of i n f o r m a t i o n  conceptually  from  and so i t i s n o t much d i f f e r e n t  However, b e c a u s e t h e i d e a  has  bold.  of i n f o r m a t i o n  of t h e o b j e c t - e f f e c t  i s so c e n t r a l  responsible  integration  not v e r y  unit)  object  here i s  a r e not i n f e r r e d  t h e mechanism  (ie.  units  the point  such as t h o s e of t h e preview  (b) t h e q u a l i f i c a t i o n t h a t  restatement  of b e t w e e n - o b j e c t  i s l e s s a r b i t r a r y when a p p l i e d t o  plus  a  Again,  themselves.  inference  circular,  directly  label  effect.  kind) as r e l a t e d t o  as i n t e g r a t i o n ;  i n which t h e r e l e v a n t  effect  thinking  ( o r any o t h e r  interactions  interactions The  l a b e l l e d an o b j e c t  Integration  information  been termed  contrasting  integration  spatiotemporal,  with simple  integration,  t u r n s out t o emphasize  over  space  the object  a description  s p a t i a l and simple  nature of the i n t e g r a t i o n . integrated  underlying  Visual  i n the sense  the  temporal  object-oriented  information that  w h i c h , by  under  c a n be certain  effect  49 circumstances locations  i n the f i e l d  processing 1981;  simultaneous  interaction  over  circumstances if  they  effect,  t h e most  describe  salient  nor t e m p o r a l  integration  stimuli  Although  i t i s an  there  point  The  causal  i s between  integration.  effect.  The o b j e c t across  to disparate  information disturbing  requires  objects  that  effect  that  to  represents the which  A moving  of a s i n g l e  by an a p p a r e n t  impetus  c i r c u l a r i t y in  information  f o r the preview  that  the o r d e r l y  some s o r t of  perception  spatiotemporal  1978).  I t may be  i t i s the o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e f i e l d  i s put forward  to account  integration.  f o r the  spatiotemporal  information  asserting  the i n t e g r a t i o n i s r e s p o n s i b l e  that  spatial  segments o f s p a c e - t i m e .  integration (cf. Anstis, therefore  t y p e s of  b o t h s p a c e and t i m e ,  between o b j e c t s and  e x p e r i m e n t s was t h e o b s e r v a t i o n  1980;  t o the object  integration is sufficient  The a d m i t t e d  of moving o b j e c t s  be u s e d a s  these  i s that n e i t h e r  may be b o t h e r e d  relation  c a n be  interesting  i n t e r p r e t a t i o n i s so n a t u r a l :  identity  reader  may  (eg.: D i L o l l o ,  i n v o l v e s the c o n s i s t e n t a s s i g n i n g  perceptual  into  Visual information  together  of i n f o r m a t i o n  why t h e o b j e c t  special  i n t h e s e n s e t h a t under c e r t a i n  1968).  the object  at different  ( e g . : Kahneman & H e n i k ,  and t h e i n t e g r a t i o n g i v i n g r i s e  integration  object  1976).  how much c o m m o n a l i t y  integration  them  s e q u e n t i a l l y presented  & Collins,  question  the  between  were b o t h p r e s e n t  Eriksen  is  time  appearing  may be g r o u p e d enough t o c a u s e  Banks & P r i n z m e t a l ,  integrated  stimuli  I s t h i s not f o r the o b j e c t  50 and  that  the object  What must used.in ways.  the research, The f a c t  subjectively evidence  i s that  object  a shorthand  "objectness"  objects.  may o n l y  of t h e l i n e  concerning  i s e v e r made t h a t  them  be a s s o c i a t e d  movement, a l t h o u g h ,  with  because  apparent  motion,  movement  i s the important  concept, but  the c l u s t e r of a s flow  i t i s the  its intuitive  gives the f o r c e , b u t no  figures are e f f e c t i v e  objects.  the c r i t i c a l  the s u b j e c t i v e such d i s p l a y s  causal  factor  impression  of  involve  t h e y do make t h e p o s s i b i l i t y f a c t o r seem q u i t e  would n o t be a t a l l i n c o n s i s t e n t  with  the  only  that  phenomenal  reasonable.  This  re-viewing  e i t h e r , w h i c h models t h e i n t e g r a t i o n a s a c t i n g  backwards and o c c u r r i n g because a process  cannot  somewhere i n  figures that  the l i n e  i n the Ternus d i s p l a y  formulation  i s prima-facie  t o which t h e o p t i c a l True,  t h e y a r e s u b j e c t i v e l y good  Even  units  to represent  variables according  assumption  because  consists  integration occurring  into subjective  assumption  phenomenological  i s not a p r i m a r i l y phenomenological  yet-unspecified  subjective  that  In t h e c a s e o f t h e c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n o f t h e RT  object  parsed  i s a primarily  integrated  c a n be  independent,  observations  the v i s u a l world  of coherent  u s e d more l i k e  just  t h e term o b j e c t  not c o m p l e t e l y  object  that  of i n f o r m a t i o n  system.  data,  is  f o r the i n t e g r a t i o n ?  In t h e c a s e o f t h e n a t u r a l i s t i c  concept.  is  be r e c o g n i z e d  two d i f f e r e n t , a l b e i t  inspired  the  i s responsible  rather  late  anyway; a n d r e c a l l  that  i s r e t r o a c t i v e does n o t mean t h a t i s  have e f f e c t s a t a p e r c e p t u a l  level  (Feustel,  Shiffrin  51 & Salasoo, actually  1983).  Nevertheless,  i s to the production  empirical  question  What, t h e n ,  effect  flow  important object  objecthood  with  underlying  preview  integration considered  objecthood  integration  object  of the are also  indexed  by t h e  of the o p t i c a l  empirically,  the object  aspect  probably flow  i n t e g r a t i o n , and so u n t i l subjective  effect.  predictor T h i s , of  t h e i n t e g r a t i o n depends  treatment  implication  research  integration.  t h e f i n d i n g an  of t h e o b j e c t s  directly involved.  Domain o f t h e I n t e g r a t i o n  foregoing  important  causes the  o f a s t h e most e f f i c i e n t  s o l e l y on t h e s u b j e c t i v e  The  be t a k e n t o  those v a r i a b l e s  the v a r i a b l e s  does n o t mean t h a t  Informational  the f i n d i n g of t h e  g o o d n e s s o f an o b j e c t  are i d e n t i f i e d  the i n t e g r a t i o n  i s an  attention.  for subjective  c a n be t h o u g h t  effect  of objecthood  f o r the spatiotemporal  these v a r i a b l e s  an  that  phenomenology  i f t h i s cannot  To c a l l  The s u b j e c t i v e  highly  responsible  or  to assert  responsible  effect.  course,  percept  t o the spatiotemporal  correlates  of  effect  integration?  i s simply  optical  further  i s the use of c a l l i n g  the subjective  spatiotemporal  important  of the o b j e c t  requiring  p r e v i e w p a r a d i g m an o b j e c t mean t h a t  how  of the concept  f o r understanding  i n the study  a single  be a r g u e d  w i t h moving o b j e c t s  sort  on  a single  s o r t of u n i t :  be  apparent  that,  that  conceptually  s h o u l d be  However,  unitary  information information  of i n t e g r a t i o n because objects.  holds  the r o l e of the  of s p a t i o t e m p o r a l  I t can reasonably associated  of o b j e c t  i t i s based  i t should  or not, t h i s  now  52 integration  is occurring  level.  The  subjective  attests  to  successful  search  level,  letter-naming paradigm  and  information this  concerning  responses.  can  be  the  an  one  informational  informational Of the  course,  the  ultimately  information  specific. early  The  notions  e f f o r t s in that  specific,  p e r h a p s the  out  like  t o be  According the  improvement preview  research.  the  used  of  the  the  at  i n making preview  extent  to  i n t e g r a t i o n known t o  be  generalized  goal  i s t o be  of  object  p e r f o r m a n c e can  file  direction.  to  apply  another  spatiotemporal  and  of  from b e i n g  improved  by  by  suggests  redundant  with  be  an  the  more p r o n e  stimuli for  informational  improved performance w i t h  cause  is  that  s t i m u l i might  forward  turn  others.  r e p e t i t i o n can  redundant  are  i n which time  result consistent  puts  that  object-  integration will  element  Reasons G a r n e r  describe  re-viewing  (1974) work, f o r t a s k s  redundant  to  make i t o b j e c t -  integration studied  i n t e r a c t i o n than  be  able  or p r o c e s s e s  that  Aside  I n t e r e s t i n g l y , he  presented  informational  him  of  integration  i t s basis,  i n t e r a c t i o n and  in performance—a  side-by-side.  for  level  prompted  representations  f a c t o r , simple  sequentially to  the  information  to Garner's  limiting  objects  domain.  particular cognitive  cause  the  exploration  domain can  moving  information  Thus, a t  v i e w e d as  at  object  which o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n to  informational  observation  for concomitant  one  one  v i s u a l c o h e r e n c e of  i n t e g r a t i o n of  phenomenal p e r c e p t s ,  another  a t more t h a n  presented  why  redundancy—and information  53 implies  i n t e g r a t i o n — i n c l u d e (a) t h a t  a new and e a s i e r - t o - p r o c e s s  stimulus  r e d u n d a n c y c a n improve  t h e memory  is  information  t o seek t o d e s c r i b e  "cognitive  algebra"  subtracting  of s i m p l e  and m u l t i p l y i n g  In d e a l i n g w i t h information,  each a s s o c i a t e d with  of d e s c r i b i n g i n f o r m a t i o n i n the processing  be  an i n t e r a c t i o n  stimulus  considered be  third  the  other, The  involved  pointed  there  interaction i s ways t h e  itself  There  at the l e v e l  they  may  system  may  of the  would be  and would  extreme,  in effect  there  may be no  be an i n t e r a c t i o n r e c e i v i n g some  The as a  input  from  dimension.  experiments demonstrate that  of information  domain t h a t  important concerns the  that  represents  stimuli  t o one t h a t  c a n be  into objects.  an e x t e n s i o n  i n t e g r a t i o n from an  i s phenomenological  information  of l e t t e r  by t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e f i e l d  out, t h i s  principle  an  are three  so t h a t  i n the c o g n i t i v e processing  integrated  that  system,  of the response p r o c e s s e s .  there  response  inappropriate  preview  averaging,  response  interaction  At the other  the l e v e l  of each  i t s own  in h i s terminology  a l t e r n a t i v e i s that  consequence  s u c h as  the information  themselves,  a s i n g l e dimension. until  i n terms of a  d i m e n s i o n s c a n be i n t e r a c t i v e .  "integral"  interaction  approach  1981).  system a t which  between  dimensions  interaction  the f a c t  He p o i n t s o u t t h a t of these  Another  t h e c a s e o f two d i m e n s i o n s o f p e r c e p t u a l  aspect  processing  process.  (Anderson,  (1974) makes a p p a r e n t  occurring.  d i m e n s i o n , and (b) t h a t  operations  Garner  level  redundancy can produce  As  of the  information i s not.  Whatever  54 are  the  d e t a i l s of  effect,  a  large  the  part  mechanism u n d e r l y i n g  of  understanding  u n d e r s t a n d i n g more p r e c i s e l y what involved  i n the  information  letter  are  effect,  subject  to  The  present  As  was  true  is  the  figural  that  the  earlier  relation  and  the  Previous follow  project,  dependent  response to  the  the  type of  stimuli presented.  the  KTG  research  t o v o c a l l y name. thesis  involve  classify In  this  integration of  Most  the of  of  present  kinds  KTG's p r e v i e w the  of  and  noted  here  subjects  the  i s in  subjects in  had  of a p h y s i c a l  concerning  of  exceptions,  reported  e x p e r i m e n t s probe the  of  latency  stimuli that  basis  variable  a preview  i s the  experiments  the  paradigm.  independent  W i t h the  s t i m u l i that  information  is  integration.  major m o d i f i c a t i o n  the  on  information  be  Project  variable  lexical  nonlexical  dichotomously way,  The  involved  mechanism w i l l  what o t h e r  between a t a r g e t  target.  object  INVESTIGATION  experiments  i n the  target,  To  of  spatiotemporal  PRESENT Relation  that  kind  and  the  had  this  to property.  spatiotemporal  physical  properties  objects. The  KTG. the  visual displays  Both d i s p l a y s , the Ternus d i s p l a y  apparent  (see  one.  a  (two  feature the  much l i k e  four-box Figure  preview  final  field  The  includes  display  an  initial  i n the  those developed (see  2), c o n s i s t  m o t i o n phase c o n n e c t i n g  with a subsequent  and  are  initial field  c a s e of the  of  the  target.  Figure a real  stimulus  typically  by 3)  and  or field includes  four-box d i s p l a y ) , Like  i n the  mother  55 project,  the  potential as  the  c e n t r a l design  f o r a preview  subsequent  different  feature  to appear  target,  or,  to determine  p u r p o s e of  whether  between l e t t e r s  the  i n preview  lexical  be  of  possible  moving o b j e c t s like  cognitive  edge of  of  that  object  or  part  object of  a  which they are primitives,  investigation is  integration  e x p e r i m e n t s can Can  target  i n the  the  of  an  observed  be  object  stimulus  that the  organization the  generated  effect  rather  of  the an  only  as  lines  be  based  than  on  scene  letters. can  be  context  of  a  shadow  tilted  of  versa,  suggesting  on  o r i e n t a t i o n dimension.  vertical  dependent. the  influences  i t bounds.  the  I l l u s o r y or  Such the  contours context  in  d e l i n e a t i o n of v i s u a l  found that vertical  during  lines  i s c o d e d as Of  the  i s seen as  a c o n s e q u e n c e of In her  into  features  First,  e x t r e m e example:  search  that  out  a  that i t  i n t e r a c t i o n of  surface  (in press) pop  of  hint  whether a c o n t o u r  margin  perceived.  Treisman  literature  features  contours are  come i n t o e x i s t e n c e  the  same  i n which responses are  i n t e r a c t i o n of  brightness  subjective  the  constrain  (1985) n o t e s  perceived  present  well.  experiments  processing  an  as  findings  will  i t does the  Treisman  the  identity?  A couple might  the  spatiotemporal  features  a physical property  its  of  the  Rationale  i n KTG's p r e v i e w  between p h y s i c a l  on  part  is  object.  most b a s i c  produced  as  both d i s p l a y s  a l t e r n a t i v e l y , as  P u r p o s e and The  of  but  the  i n t e r e s t here  visual not  vice  neutral i s the  point result  56 that  t h e s e same t i l t e d  tilted  frame  difficult the  so t h e y a p p e a r  to search for just  relative  Second,  apparent  motion,  Johansson  "thing"  alternative represent One  i s that  represent  i n any  most o f w h i c h a r e p h y s i c a l for  the o b j e c t  ultimately  shed  effect light  identity  The  that  are  object—will be  thought  interesting  in brightness  preview  might  attribute.  experiments,  translation  of t h e  research.  t y p e of s t i m u l u s :  o f an o b j e c t  must  o f a number of  rather  i f two  may  on t h e f u n d a m e n t a l can u n d e r g o  (Kahneman & H e n i k ,  issue  After In  be  properties,  than c o n c e p t u a l .  across various physical  t r a n s f o r m a t i o n s an o b j e c t perceptual  special  Studying  preview experiments i s  the preview  coherence  over changes  that  of a disembodied  a more g e n e r a l  are a rather  the p e r c e p t u a l  maintained  change  featural  issues motivating  letters  vision  shifting  i t appears.  not an  shadow.  be  implications i t  something  to the p r e v i o u s l e x i c a l  they a c t u a l l y  all,  this  reason to conduct  theoretical  This  can  in cycles  something—but  the apparent motion  relative  brighter  s u c h as a moving  were i n  as o b j e c t s .  (1978) n o t i c e d  t o move between them.  as a  that  the p r o c e s s i n g  g e t dimmer and  d e g r e e s out of p h a s e ,  lines  c o n t e x t i n which  equally-  are  Apparently t i l t  a p p l y t o f e a t u r e s as w e l l  contiguous discs  appear  frame.  a p p a r e n t m o t i o n , and may  vertical,  as t h e v e r t i c a l  to the f i g u r a l  carries,  180  when s u r r o u n d e d by an  relatively  c o n t e x t of t h e u n t i l t e d  coded  of  lines,  Testing  properties o f what  and y e t r e t a i n i t s 1981).  may  57 A more s p e c i f i c experiments mechanism  i s t h a t they  effect  observed  by KTG.  p r o p e r t i e s may  may  presence,  support  i s to test  of s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t  size,  and c o l o r .  for  properties  (eg: Averbach  Clark,  1969; T u r v e y  Green,  1975).  from  task  (KTG).  effect the  the l e t t e r  & Coriell,  & Kravetz,  and so some  to another  realm  in a p a r t i c u l a r the v i s u a l  cued  search  to a p a r t i c u l a r  way  physical  others  the p r e s e n t  may  approach  sought  of the i c o n  by  1961; Von W r i g h t ,  to testing  Russell &  Effect  task  setting,  identification  location  1968;  o f t h e o b j e c t e f f e c t has  work a t t e m p t s  to a v i s u a l  search  to g e n e r a l i z e the but w i t h o u t task,  leaving  i n w h i c h an  must be i d e n t i f i e d .  task d i d not r e q u i r e responses  location,  this  f o r the spatiotemporal  the Object  experimental  of a s t i m u l u s  while  1970; T r e i s m a n ,  identification  The p r e s e n t  as  Of c o u r s e ,  by r e s e a r c h e r s who  f a r t h e major g e n e r a l i z a t i o n  been  history,  r e p o r t w i t h a v a r i e t y of  Generalizing So  truly i s  object properties:  In t h i s  of p a r t i a l  i n t e g r a t i o n of  results.  the i n f o r m a t i o n a l composition  superiority  of t h e  the present  the o b j e c t e f f e c t  r e m i n i s c e n t of t h a t taken  describe  the nature  visual  then  n o t be e x h a u s t i v e  The s t r a t e g y h e r e i n  integration  is  suggest,  should produce p o s i t i v e  history  preview  I f the o b j e c t e f f e c t  o f a moving o b j e c t ' s dynamic  experiments  not.  featural  can h e l p determine  some o f KTG's e x p e r i m e n t s  visual  t o conduct  r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the spatiotemporal  information an  reason  item  Because t o be made  and t h e r e f o r e d i d n o t demand a  58 spatial  focussing  of a t t e n t i o n , r e s u l t s of  of e x p e r i m e n t s c o u l d search  experiment  One  of  two  the  some of  KTG  work  p r e v i e w s of  the  responsible  f o r the  by  previews,  multiple  eliminate  the  More the  quite  (Treisman  m i n o r way  generalize  be  different  & Gelade, the  target  object this  importantly,  the the  object  over-used  in cognitive research  (1983) goes so  but  see  decision  to  sensory be  an  storage  to the  tasks  Hudson,  stage  1982).  & Salasoo,  any  of  partial  i n c l u s i o n of processing (Haber,  Depite  1983;  with  the  account  1983).  verbal  "coherence"  In o b t a i n i n g  stimuli,  that  phenomenon  1975).  Neisser  Logan, stimuli  repetition  Also may  peculiar be  (de G r o o t , Thomassen  object of  lexical  lexical  stimuli  1983;  some  when i t comes t o s t i m u l u s  processing  semantic  1979).  in information  verbal  to  detrimentally  f o r the  (Henik, F r i e d i c h & K e l l o g g ,  information of  are  further  e f f e c t s i n c o l o r naming and  (Feustel, Shiffrin  nonlexical  from v e r b a l  u n i t i z e d responses a s s o c i a t e d  expectancies  "distraction"  possibly  f o r example,  responsible  essentially  them s p e c i a l s t a t u s  effects  to  mechanism  seeks to  (Johansson,  suggest,  between c o n t e x t  1980), t h e give  f a r as  research  stimuli  Treisman, R u s s e l l & Green,  parallels  here  presentation  I f the  could  effect  Alphanumeric  s u p e r i o r i t y , though  m o d e l s , may  the  i s subject  present  stimuli.  initial  reported  involve  modification  nonverbal  an  the  1980).  in f i e l d - 1 .  effect  series  effect.  g e n e r a l i z a t i o n of  report  they  present  from t h o s e of  experiments  i s that  the  effect  information  with integration  &  59 relying  on  lexical  (1980) l e x i c a l (Coltheart, less  representations,  stabilization  1983).  A  i n t e r p r e t a b l e as  letters,  Why The object  reader  properties. change t h e  can The  of  letters  However, which  will  experiments For of  one  like  generally  on  are  assumed t h a t  visual  be  the  than g r o s s e r true  that  1979).  integration  takes  data  are  I f , as  become u n a v a i l a b l e  too  level,  based  on  by low  the  the  shape  herein,  features  of  an  because shape d i d  hierarchy  and  KTG,  the  so.  details  more d e c i s i o n i t is  probably decisions  spatiotemporal  level  support  the  because  more r a p i d l y t h a n  time,  soon t o  on  letter  would be,  lost  not  a t t r i b u t e s anyway.  at a higher,  suspected  significant  should  experiments  processing  features  physical  in  different  abstracted  with  the  witnessed  verbal  i n v o l v i n g responses based i n the  Assumed  that  at a v i s u a l  their  to  weaker  correct  produce p o s i t i v e r e s u l t s j u s t  (Treisman,  may  be  Be  stimuli  is really  be  1983).  information  effect  out  relative  KTG's r e s u l t s ,  r e s u l t s i f KTG  than  to  assumed t o o b t a i n  is occurring  rather  shape may  level  given  r e s p o n s e s b a s e d on  thing,  letter  rise  Cannot  to n o n l e x i c a l  object  i t cannot  involve  object,  switch  be  i n t e g r a t i o n of  lexical  give  Effect  that,  simply  experiments  the  the  feel  experimental  spatiotemporal  then  should  ruled  would a l s o  because,  (Kahneman & C h a j c z y k ,  may  Coltheart's  effect  response e f f e c t ,  a Featural Object  effect  preview  a  does  i s immediately  f e a t u r a l object  nonlexical stimuli  response tendencies  idea,  as  an  f e a t u r a l data object  effect.  60 Letter processing  identification of the l e t t e r  as an o b j e c t ,  them e s p e c i a l l y d i s t i n c t responses. and  Features  processing.  perceptual first that  application are  theory" that  Treisman  the  select  objects  preattentively, and  context  conjunction its in  subsequently unattended shape  objects  finding  that  perceptual  ( o b j e c t s ) and seems t o  of o b j e c t s  c a n be  though  target  some u n a t t e n d e d but t h i s  1981).  Kahneman and  (Treisman, t o the  detected  l e s s i n f l u e n c e d by e x p e c t a n c y ,  and r e l a t i o n a l  (Rock & Gutman,  as the glue  Attention  features  for a feature  recognized,  features  the importance of  1979), and even  Furthermore,  through the  objects.  i s substantially influenced  l o c a t i o n , search  analyzers  The e a r l y s t a g e p r i o r  a t which  At the  in "feature-integration  (features).  i s probably  target  press).  Thus,  as opposed t o p r o p e r t i e s  (Treisman,  1979).  level,  between t h e s e l e c t i o n o f i n p u t s  of o b j e c t s ,  l e v e l s of  free-floating  to create  Kahneman & B u r k e l l , 1983). synthesis  distinct  by i n d e p e n d e n t  1969) n o t e  s e l e c t i o n of a n a l y z e r s  encoding  1980), a t t e n t i o n a c t s  together  (1984; T r e i s m a n ,  distinguishing  in their  (Treisman,  a t t e n t i o n , these  & Gelade,  would make  identification  At t h e s e c o n d  t o form o b j e c t s .  features  and t h i s  i s that  are detected  of f o c a l  (Treisman  binds  view  are involved  in parallel.  conjoined  feature  require the  from o b j e c t s  A prominent  features  operate  from  differ  processing  level  r e s p o n s e s may  search by  i s not  pre-cueing (Treisman,  features  c a n be  i s not the case f o r features  s u c h a s complex  Of p a r t i c u l a r r e l e v a n c e  grouping  for a  influences visual  i s the  search f o r  61 conjunctions Even feature  but not s e a r c h  for features  i f the i n f o r m a t i o n a l  and l e t t e r  processing  stimuli  d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e f e a t u r e  qua  response  can  i n f l u e n c e how a n a l y t i c a l l y  much o f t h e p r o c e s s e d  I t i s conceivable  that  a  p h y s i c a l property  o f an o b j e c t  simple  to process  the v i s u a l  irrelevance  scene  asking  (Marcel,  subjects will  i n a way t h a t  of i t s g l o b a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l  thus p r e c l u d i n g  task  1974) and how  i s retrieved  1983b).  of a  tasks  information i s  1984; G a r n e r ,  information  effect,  response  The n a t u r e  incoming  & Paterson,  the o b j e c t  and l e t t e r  may be i m p o r t a n t .  (Treisman  perceptual  i n t e r a c t with  the  processed  1982).  d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e  do n o t demand  d i f f e r e n c e s that  tasks  (Treisman,  t o respond to  encourage  them  r e f l e c t s the characteristics,  any o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c i n t e g r a t i o n o f  information. An The to  f e a t u r a l preview  implement  field-1 object  e x p e r i m e n t s a f f o r d an  stimuli  c a n be made t o v a r y  irrelevant  appearing not o n l y  to response. respond  may be c o n s i s t e n t  identity  t o shape.  In t h i s  The  o f t h e same dimension  dimension  i n an e x p e r i m e n t i n  of a t a r g e t ,  or i n c o n s i s t e n t with  and a t t h e same time c o n s i s t e n t  respect  as p a r t s  on t h e f e a t u r e  F o r example, to the s i z e  opportunity  of t h e p a r a d i g m .  r e s p o n s e but a l s o on a s e c o n d  which s u b j e c t s stimuli  of the Paradigm  an i n t e r e s t i n g e l a b o r a t i o n  and f i e l d - 2  controlling  size  Elaboration  t h e two respect  or i n c o n s i s t e n t  way t h e i m p o r t a n c e  to .  with  of complete  between t a r g e t and p r e v i e w c a n be a s s e s s e d .  KTG's  62 letter  c a s e and  involved  "consistent"  identical, finding only  failed  facilitated  controlling object  decision  s t i m u l i that  by  true a  and  fully  consistency  r e s p o n s e may e f f e c t may  on  the  is  on  consistency  facilitation,  weaker as  the  so  each  that  physical  of  how  comprehensive  suggest object  that  the  field-1  target;  but  does  i t apply  stimulus?  Attention  properties  of  an  assumption  i s that  r e - v i e w e d as dimension,  of  recent  1983)  the  the  the  contributes simply  stimuli provide  to  get  indication  is.  KTG  only  the  to  same-  the  of  that  processing  of  a l l the  that  not,  to  properties  of  an  (Treisman, working  object  v a r i a t i o n on  will  be  a  decreases. an  respect  properties  or  so  possibility  i t is allocated  therefore  response-relevant  is  v a r i a t i o n on  so p e r h a p s a s e n s i b l e  a l l of  a u n i t , and  by  e f f e c t may  with  t o a l l the  to which  a target  intermediate  object  facilitates  object  Kahneman & B u r k e l l ,  An  process applies  most  this  f a c t o r , and  i n t e g r a t i o n mechanism  re-viewing  stimulus  of  critical  experiments w i l l  the  Perhaps  preview.  unaffected  similarity  Such d u o d i m e n s i o n  effects.  f e a t u r a l dimension  the  both  f e a t u r a l dimension  only  totally  which  physically  processing  the  dimension.  the  were not  identical  be  be  the  response-irrelevant that  experiments,  to generate object  is generally  Alternatively,  the  lexical  will  be  any  important.  It  experiments  the  o  should only  be  recognized,  aspect  particular field-2.  of  the  feature Indeed,  however, t h a t  display of for  that  relevance feature  in these  must be i n the  attended cued  consistency  on  is  location the  the of  irrelevant  63 dimension  to interact  dimension  requires  irrelevant  with the object  influence  effect  by an i r r e l e v a n t  i t e m i n an i r r e l e v a n t  dimension  w i t h c o n s i s t e n c y on t h e r e s p o n s e - i r r e l e v a n t  tend  t o be p r o c e s s e d  tend  n o t t o be.  Biederman varying  & Checkosky,  categories  dimension relevant that of  of dichotomous  i n one c o n d i t i o n ,  which  t h e same c o l o r  condition.  of dimensions,  patch, correlated  on t h e i r r e l e v a n t  sorting dubbed  classification  sorting  For other p a i r s  These  dimension  and " n o n i n t e g r a l "  or s e p a r a b i l i t y ,  Extrapolating  from F e l f o l d y ' s  and interfered such as the  drawn a c r o s s i t ,  had no i n f l u e n c e on  t y p e s of dimension  independence,  found  on t h e  of dimensions,  dimension  t a s k h a s been u s e d  with the  authors  performance  and t h e a n g l e o f a d i a m e t e r  performance. "integral"  These  variation  variation  on t h e i r r e l e v a n t  to the  s u c h a s v a l u e and chroma  orthogonal  variation  i n t o two  with the r e l e v a n t  improved  of a c i r c l e  stimuli  was i r r e l e v a n t  dimension  size  ( a l s o see  dimensions  irrelevant  with performance.  features  and o t h e r s  and i t was u n c o r r e l a t e d  i n another  f o r some p a i r s  (1970)  may  by t h e v a l u e a l o n g one o f t h e  t a s k was c o r r e l a t e d  dimension  Some  1970) had s u b j e c t s s o r t  The d i m e n s i o n  classification  in question.  and F e l f o l d y  distinquished  dimensions.  features  interacts  dimension  i n d e p e n d e n t l y o f one a n o t h e r  Garner  along a pair  f e a t u r e o f an  location.  Whether c o n s i s t e n c y on t h e r e s p o n s e  depend on t h e p a r t i c u l a r  on t h e r e l e v a n t  pairs  respectively,  were  and t h i s  to assess the encoding  of v a r i o u s f e a t u r e (1974) r e s u l t s  with  dimensions. this  64 paradigm, might  the re-viewing  of width  i n v o l v e t h e mandatory  information,  re-viewing  f o r example,  of h e i g h t  information  too. The  Monodimension Subjects  All  of B r i t i s h  corrected-to-normal subjects.  subjects; The  vision,  Experiments  Experiment five  apparatus.  students,  served  A Digital  as p a i d  white graphics  i n more t h a n one  1, 2, 4, and 5 e a c h employed  3 employed  Corporation  d i s p l a y s on a DEC VR  t e r m i n a l , and r e c o r d e d  filter  eight  12 s u b j e c t s .  Equipment  was a n c h o r e d  of t h e g r a p h i c s  persistence angle  volunteer  t h e same  (DEC) PDP 11/34 It  17-LC b l a c k a n d  the s u b j e c t s '  w h i c h were made on a s e t o f t h r e e  A blue viewing front  normal or  was used t o r u n t h e e x p e r i m e n t s .  the v i s u a l  responses,  with  population.  monodimension e x p e r i m e n t s a l l employed  computer  presented  and  Columbia  Some i n d i v i d u a l s p e r f o r m e d  experiment.  the  and Apparatus  e x p e r i m e n t s drew f r o m t h e same s u b j e c t  University  digital  Experiments  telegraph  i n a bracket  terminal to f i l t e r  and a l s o t o e n s u r e a c o n s t a n t  keys.  attached to  o u t any s c r e e n  distance  (60 cm)  ( n o r m a l ) of s c r u t i n y . Experiment  A logical investigation properties  1: P r e s e n c e  experiment  with  imaginable:  mere p r e s e n c e .  to  r e q u i r e s only  an o b j e c t  Version)  which t o begin the  of spatiotemporal  i s one c o n c e r n e d  (Late-Cue  with  integration  of p h y s i c a l  the l o w e s t - l e v e l property  Responding  "present"  the g r o s s e s t — a n d  or  "absent"  presumably t h e  65 earliest--of  perceptual  circumstances, attending 1980).  detection  1 provides letter  performed  on t h e b a s i s  should  without & Gelade,  presence/absence  identification.  responsible  judgment,  t o t h e KTG e x p e r i m e n t s  I f any t a s k  of i n f o r m a t i o n  object-organization task  (Treisman  maximal c o n t r a s t  requiring  under some  r e s p o n s e s c a n be made  By r e q u i r i n g a s i m p l e  detection  Indeed,  t o or l o c a t i n g the t a r g e t  Experiment  the  analyses:  c a n be  made a v a i l a b l e p r i o r t o  f o r the object  effect, a  be i t .  Method Stimuli 3)  and D i s p l a y .  was u s e d .  display  The change  was i n i t i a t e d  experiments,  there  The f o u r - b o x d i s p l a y from a t w o - o b j e c t  because,  i s greater  between t h e i t e m s p r e s e n t e d Letters are a l l v i s u a l l y property  experiments  in  gross  their  that  relative  arrangement  two  would  order  disparate  empty a n d one b e i n g  would  stand  to avoid  attention  stimulus  similar globally.  "diffuse"  w o u l d be f u l l ) ,  figure  forvisual  within  properties  variability field.  In t h e p h y s i c a l can d i f f e r  I t was r e a s o n e d  display a four-object  t h e d i f f e r e n c e between stimuli  full,  out p e r c e p t u a l l y .  untoward asymmetries field-1.  (eg. instead  line o f one box  two boxes would be empty a n d  thereby ensuring  to stimulus  four-object  a single field  physical characteristics.  figures containing being  scope  t o a two-object  to a  i n these p h y s i c a l  i n a given  stimuli  (see Figure  that This  no s i n g l e  line  was n e c e s s a r y i n  i n the a l l o c a t i o n of  66  PRESENT-CONSISTENT  F i g u r e 3. The f o u r c o n d i t i o n s of t h e f o u r - b o x d i s p l a y as u s e d in the monodimension l a t e - c u e p r e s e n c e e x p e r i m e n t . (Actual s i z e ; dashed l i n e s r e f e r to the f i r s t f i e l d , dashed arrows t o m o t i o n , and s o l i d l i n e s t o t h e s e c o n d f i e l d ) .  67 All  trials  followed  absolute position randomly  from  composed  of  (deg)  fixation an  dot  to t r i a l .  line  in length,  appeared  (0.1  dot.  deg).  After  First,  seqments  1.2  equally They  imaginary square, t h e i r  fixation  a period  an  0.9  deg  o t h e r two  milliseconds all  four  equal  of  an  display  the f i e l d - 1  empty boxes  and  two  empty once  0.6  stimuli  were f i l l e d  deg  lines), Thirty  of t h e f i e l d - 1  away  from t h e  Though the m o t i o n i t was  a l l s i x jumps  relative  70+2  discrete  ms.  The  deg  per s t e p ) ,  a  t o r o t a t e and  as  so t h e  expand.  Because  c l o c k w i s e or c o u n t e r - c l o c k w i s e t o t h e  equally  the  i n a square c o n f i g u r a t i o n  the center  motion  p e r s t e p ) as w e l l  were  spaced  the  o f t h e s c r e e n had  (0.2 deg  (0.1  in six  c o n t i n u o u s because  to the center  component  of  the  dot  same e x t e n t , when t h e y s t o p p e d moving t h e boxes  eccentricity  and  stimuli,  fixation  a series  in just  t r a n s v e r s e component radial  was  subjectively  as a whole a p p e a r e d  Now  with  again.  upon r e m o v a l  t h e y a l l moved e i t h e r  dot.  the  were t u r n e d o f f , l e a v i n g  completed  outward,  away f r o m  the a s t e r i s k s  steps.  sideward,  a t t h e c o r n e r s of  later,  moved outwards  the boxes  ms,  central  with blanks.  displacements, boxes  lines  deg  arc  were " f i l l e d "  boxes  boxes  2.0  each  boxes  Immediately four  spaced around a  o f 500  of t h e f o u r  the  empty b o x e s ,  d e g r e e s of v i s u a l  centers  Two  (two  four  were s i t u a t e d  were p r e s e n t e d : asterisk  although the  of t h e o b j e c t s on t h e s c r e e n v a r i e d  trial  four  t h e same s e q u e n c e ,  of e a c h box  than before,  2.8  deg  resided from  around at a  still fixation  greater  fixation.  Each  box  68 occupied  a p o s i t i o n that  adjacent  couple  As and  was an e q u a l d i s t a n c e  of t h e o r i g i n a l ,  field-1  box l o c a t i o n s .  soon as t h e boxes s t o p p e d moving, t h e f i e l d - 2  a c u e were p r e s e n t e d  and l e f t  Like  on t h e s c r e e n  subject  responded.  stimuli  were two a s t e r i s k s and two b l a n k s ,  of  necessarily  to designate  squares  the target  controlled. distance two  stimuli.  from  locations  of f i e l d - 1  position--the equally  near  were removed  allowed on  the screen.  turned  display  should  was  total  t h e two  stimulus  t o the target  locations  (see Figure  3)--were  position.  r e s p o n d e d and t h e f i e l d - 2  When t h i s  on t h e b a s i s  solid  one on e i t h e r s i d e o f  were n e a r e s t  the four  period  intertrial  a period  of p i l o t  s t i m u l i and  o f 1000 ms was  empty boxes  remained  ended and t h e boxes were interval  second a f t e r - d i s p l a y of j u s t the four included  o f two  s t i m u l i and t h e t a r g e t  Moreover,  i n which o n l y  o f f , a 900 ms  a t t h e same  l o c a t i o n was t h e same  from t h e s c r e e n ,  to elapse  cue, which  l o c a t i o n s as i t was from t h e  nearest-neighbor  Once t h e s u b j e c t cue  that  the target  two  by a gap of 1.4 d e g .  i s , the target  locations.  A bipartite  appearing  t h e two p r e v i e w  nonpreview  so once a g a i n  box, was p r e s e n t e d  between t h e f i e l d - 1  That  u n t i l the  the f i e l d - 2  The c u e c o n s i s t e d  box and s e p a r a t e d  Proximity  stimuli  and two r e m a i n e d empty, a l t h o u g h n o t  (0.4 deg on a s i d e )  target  stimuli,  t h e same boxes a s b e f o r e .  time as the f i e l d - 2  the  the f i e l d - 1  t h e boxes were f i l l e d  served  from an  was begun.  stationary  results.  Why  The one  boxes was  the a f t e r -  make any d i f f e r e n c e t o t h e s u b j e c t ' s  response  69 is  unknown, but i t has been  subjects before that  reported elsewhere  t o view an o b j e c t a t r e s t ,  or a f t e r  1956).  ambiguity  about  for a period  either  i t has moved, i n c r e a s e s t h e v e l o c i t y  o b j e c t c a n move w i t h o u t  Gulick,  that allowing  appearing  a t which  b l u r r e d (Smith &  Perhaps the a f t e r - d i s p l a y  reduces  perceptual  e x a c t l y what t h e moving boxes do on each  trial,  a n d so i s a b l e  though  i t occurs  to affect  after  responses  the response  in general  even  i s made on any s p e c i f i c  trial. C o n d i t i o n s and S t i m u l u s the  stimuli  comprising  across conditions: asterisks of  field-1 One  blanks.  between  importance  regard  t h a t bore n e a r e s t - n e i g h b o r  nearest-neighbor  location,  boxes  that  would Four  Figure  later types  3).  conditions:  than  and f i e l d - 2  the i d e n t i t y  stimuli.  Of  were t h e two s t i m u l i o f  relations  nearest-neighbor  location.  and the o t h e r  contained  c o n d i t i o n s was t h e  to the t a r g e t .  That  i s , one  s t i m u l u s was i n a nearest-neighbor  s t i m u l u s was framed by t h e box t h a t would target,  constant  s t i m u l u s was i n t h e t a r g e t - y o k e d  and t h e o t h e r  target-nonyoked  were h e l d  Rather  the f i e l d - 1  in this  The i d e n t i t i e s o f  field  what d i d d i f f e r e n t i a t e  relation  particular  stimulus  Two o f t h e f i e l d - 1  and two c o n t a i n e d  the s t i m u l i ,  figural  each  Placement.  later  contain the  was f r a m e d by one o f t h e t h r e e  contain of t r i a l  These t r i a l  boxes  distractors. occurred types  with  equal  frequency (see  d e f i n e d the four  experimental  present-consistent, present-inconsistent,  absent-consistent  and a b s e n t - i n c o n s i s t e n t .  The f i r s t  part of  70 t h e s e compound target, the in  and t h e s e c o n d  target  names r e f e r s t o t h e s t a t u s  r e f e r s to the f i g u r a l  and i t s p r e v i e w s .  the d i s c u s s i o n  p r e v i e w was  shown  inconsistent in  condition  "Consistency"  o f KTG's work: i n the target  trials  a nonpreview  was  trials  like  a  and on  i n the target  box  f ield-1.  (but  with a l l p o s i t i o n s being other  s t i m u l i of f i e l d s  to c e r t a i n c o n s t r a i n t s asterisks the  shown  between  i s used here  in field-1,  Once t h e p o s i t i o n o f t h e t a r g e t  the  relation  On c o n s i s t e n t box  of t h e  other  trial,  boxes c o n t a i n e d  blank.  The two a s t e r i s k s  For  sides  of  3).  The two  so t h a t  according  field-1  one o c c u p i e d  one o f t h e two  one o f  d i d not.  In  nearest-neighbor  an a s t e r i s k and one c o n t a i n e d in field-1  times),  a  were a l w a y s l o c a t e d i n  of the c e n t r a l  fixation  d o t , never i n  boxes. both  consistent  the p r e s e n t - c o n s i s t e n t  conditions  and t h e a b s e n t -  t h e two b o x e s o f f i e l d - 2  asterisks  were t h e ones t h a t  field-1.  For the p r e s e n t - i n c o n s i s t e n t  asterisk  randomly  1 and 2 were p o s i t i o n e d  (see F i g u r e  field-1  b o x e s on o p p o s i t e  number  p o s i t i o n s and t h e other  words, on e v e r y  adjacent  u s e d an e q u a l  were a l w a y s p o s i t i o n e d  nearest-neighbor  was d e t e r m i n e d  of f i e l d - 2  appeared  had c o n t a i n e d  absent-inconsistent appeared  i n the only  asterisk  in field-1.  trials  trials  the nontarget had o c c u p i e d  location in field-1.  one o f t h e a s t e r i s k s o f  d i s t r a c t o r box t h a t The o t h e r  contained  asterisks in  i n t h e box t h a t  target-nonyoked nearest-neighbor  that  For  field-2  had c o n t a i n e d  a s t e r i s k of f i e l d - 2  the  was  an  71 positioned This the  according  second a s t e r i s k direction  Figure the  t o which d i r e c t i o n  3).  appeared  from w h i c h t h e  I t was  t a r g e t box  target  in field-1  found  apparent  motion of  (Ramachandran,  t h a t moving boxes may  Michotte,  way,  1963)  their  be  contents  able  had  box  i t from the  the  in  (see  flow  of  f u n c t i o n i n g as  asterisk  1981). to  situated  travelled  against  movement, t o d i s c o u r a g e  f o r the  boxes r o t a t e d .  field-2  t a r g e t box  positioned this  a terminus box  i n the  the  i n the  Recall  "launch"  toward a v a i l a b l e  that  KTG  (cf. terminus  stimuli. Procedure. one  hour) the  summarized answered,  To  subject  by  the  the  block,  When t h e s e  to  start  the  the  experiments asterisk  alone  i n the  letter  i n the  key,  s u b j e c t was  Because t h e s e  and  the of  At  to  the  screen  three  each b l o c k  the  had  been terminal of  48  eight blocks  of  beginning  a  requesting  t e l e g r a p h keys the  of  48  the in order  computer o f f e r e d  rest. KTG,  s u b j e c t was  i f t h e r e was  to press  responses  then  b l o c k s , each c o n s i s t i n g  e x p e r i m e n t s of  c u e d box,  about  darkened  the  i n v o l v e a dichotomous response.  hand t e l e g r a p h the  opportunity  the  Once q u e s t i o n s  were begun.  After  lasted  w h i c h were  b l o c k s were c o m p l e t e d ,  the c e n t e r  block.  s u b j e c t an Unlike  box,  left  practice  trials  to press  (which  instructions  a message a p p e a r e d on  subject  session  experimenter.  two  data-collection  each  read  s u b j e c t was  room t o p e r f o r m trials.  begin  the  no  four-box  I f t h e r e was  to press  asterisk  the  were d i c h o t o m o u s , and  right-  i n the  left-hand telegraph  an  cued  key.  b e c a u s e of  the  72 n a t u r e of control  the  stimuli  stimuli  physical  that  features  employed,  i s absent.  experiments,  1982).  experiments there  was  Results  and  The  experiment  d i d not  in  that  in contrast  presence  preview  i s not  stimulus  in general)  no  It  Therefore, the  c l e a r , for  example,  is just  present  to the (and  508  present-inconsistent  552  absent-consistent  583  absent-inconsistent  560  as  earlier  the  as  letter  four-box i n which  the  present-consistent  was  significant  and  conditions  p <  object  present-inconsistent p < 0.001) as  was  and  consistent 44  ms  conditions the  the  -23  d i f f e r e n c e s was  also  ms  absent-  ( t ( 7 ) = -3.75, p = 0.007). two  between  The  67  ms  significant  0.001).  effect  'present'  trials  condition  generated  inconsistent  d i f f e r e n c e of  absent-consistent  between t h e s e  = 6.99,  The  ( t ( 7 ) = 8.20,  between the  inconsistent  ms  c o m p a r i s o n s were made between  inconsistent conditions.  The  Groot,  field-1.  and  (t(7)  the  were:  orthogonal  difference  to  choose  Discussion  mean RTs  difference  to  include a condition  present-consistent  Planned  respect  i n v e s t i g a t i o n ( c f . de  what would c o n s t i t u t e a it  difficult  were n e u t r a l w i t h  under  Thomassen & Hudson,  i t was  described  of E x p e r i m e n t  1:  by  KTG The  was  manifested  present-consistent  f a s t e r r e s p o n s e s t h a n d i d the  condition.  However, on  by  'absent'  present-  trials  the  the  73 opposite slower  was t r u e .  responses  The a b s e n t - c o n s i s t e n t  than  Thus, t h e r e s u l t s to the q u e s t i o n  An reader types  of Experiment  by c o n s i d e r i n g t h e v i s u a l  stimulus, asterisk  attentional  An  onset  o f an i t e m  at  a l l i n the other  resources  two, may  demonstrated  more p o w e r f u l  attractors  field-1.  s o l v e the problem  Experiment problem To  see t h i s ,  spatiotemporal assumption occupied given  Stimuli  1983).  b o x e s , and n o t h i n g a shift  of a t t e n t i o n  I n d e e d , KTG's d o u b l e - f l a s h  stimulus  onset  may  be one o f t h e  o f any g i v e n  and g i v e n  whether  featural  of d e c r e a s i n g  stimulus  i n c r e a s i n g t h e number  in principle,  in field-  f o r these  f o r the purpose  1, i t i s q u e s t i o n a b l e  in practice  o f t h e two  of a t t e n t i o n t o a l o c a t i o n  distinctiveness Nevertheless,  t o the  o f a t t e n t i o n can  induce  boxes.  experiments e x p r e s s l y  the v i s u a l  not  focus  The f o u r - o b j e c t d i s p l a y was d e v e l o p e d  preview  subject to  (Kahneman & C h a j c z y k ,  well  that  occur  and b l a n k .  i n two o f t h e f i e l d - 1  t o w a r d one o f t h e o c c u p i e d experiment  1 may  distinctiveness  of the s u b j e c t ' s v o l u n t a r y  "capture"  i s a property  respect  integration.  interpretation  outside  1.  1 a r e ambiguous w i t h  o f whether p r e s e n c e  of f i e l d - 1  generated  d i d the a b s e n t - i n c o n s i s t e n t c o n d i t i o n .  of e x p e r i m e n t  KTG's s p a t i o t e m p o r a l  condition  onset i n  o f boxes does the r e s u l t s of  i t s o l v e s the  either.  consider  integration  the h y p o t h e s i s ,  t o the  i d e a , t h a t c a n be b u i l t  that a t t e n t i o n i s a t t r a c t e d  boxes o f f i e l d - 1 .  rival  on t h e  t o one o f t h e  Suppose t h a t , o n c e a t t r a c t e d  to a  box, t h e s u b j e c t ' s a t t e n t i o n c a n f o l l o w t h a t box t o i t s  74 terminal  position in field-2.  t o be t h e t a r g e t relatively the  cued  fast  box, t h e n  because the s u b j e c t ' s  location.  response w i l l  l o c a t i o n and has t o be s h i f t e d  This  select-and-follow  suspect box  about  and  1.  inconsistent  from the  the  experience trials,  be o b t a i n e d  s e l e c t the target  and so s h o u l d  from  trials  This  exactly  of Experiment  select-and-follow  present-  box n e v e r  never  hypothesis,  benefit  slower  responses  result  mimics the o b j e c t  like  the r e s u l t  than  obtained  on  1.  the s e l e c t - a n d - f o l l o w  of E x p e r i m e n t  contains  be s e l e c t e d .  should  the o b j e c t - e f f e c t - i n c o m p a t i b l e trials  box t o f o l l o w  On  never  trials  produce  trials.  t h e same r e a s o n i n g ,  'absent'  i s reason t o  makes r e t r o d i c t i o n s  an RT a d v a n t a g e .  and i s , o f c o u r s e ,  retrodicts  should  present-inconsistent  'present'  that  to select a particular  however, t h e t a r g e t  present-consistent  By  the  should  f o l l o w i n g and so s h o u l d  effect  i s like  On a random h a l f o f t h e p r e s e n t - c o n s i s t e n t  asterisk in field-1  Therefore,  from t h e  upon t h e t a r g e t .  there  hypothesis  o f RTs t h a t  the subject  so s h o u l d  slow  ( i e . an o c c u p i e d o n e ) .  the p a t t e r n  trials,  hypothesis  would be b i a s e d  select-and-follow  Experiment  an  subjects  in field-1  be r e l a t i v e l y  to f a l l  i n t h e KTG work, b u t h e r e  that  The  rival  be  box t u r n s o u t  a t t e n t i o n ends up d i s p l a c e d  cued  encountered  will  a t t e n t i o n ends up i n  I f , however, t h e f o l l o w e d  the s u b j e c t ' s  box t u r n s out  response t o the target  t o be a d i s t r a c t o r box, t h e n because  If the followed  1 .  hypothesis  r e s u l t s obtained  According  on t h e ' a b s e n t '  on  to the  trials  i t  is  75 the  i n c o n s i s t e n t c o n d i t i o n which should  following  a n d not t h e c o n s i s t e n t c o n d i t i o n ( s e e F i g u r e 3 ) .  Therefore, negative trials  the s e l e c t - a n d - f o l l o w hypothesis  object effect  should  inconsistent Experiment  on ' a b s e n t '  produce slower trials,  which  Experiment conditions  that should  simultaneously  i s just  with  the f i e l d - 2  t o occupy  even  i s intended  the f i e l d - 1  to  themselves.  responsible the  early  attention the  the f i e l d - 1  stimuli  from  early,  are presented.  selective  being  2 the p r o b a b i l i t y of 40 ms  This  early  a t t e n t i o n to the target  locations,  before  the onsets  l o c a t i o n s have a c h a n c e t o a t t r a c t a t t e n t i o n I f the s e l e c t - a n d - f o l l o w s t r a t e g y i s  f o r the b i z a r r e  results  of Experiment  cue i s e f f i c a c i o u s  in attracting  away from  then  standard  late,  As a c o n s e q u e n c e ,  t h e cue a p p e a r  asterisks  away from t h e f i e l d - 1  in  these  In E x p e r i m e n t  to attract  under  and so t h e r e was n o t h i n g t o  by h a v i n g  the f i e l d - 1  effect  to the s e l e c t - a n d -  stimuli.  one o f t h e boxes f r a m i n g  i s reduced  object  a t t e n t i o n while  presented,  and f o l l o w e d .  Version)  1 t h e cue was d i s p l a y e d  prevent  location,  absent-  what happened i n  not be c o n d u c i v e  were b e i n g  cue  than  f o r a presence  stimuli  before  Absent-consistent  (Early-Cue  In E x p e r i m e n t  t h e r e was n o t h i n g  following  trials.  responses  2: P r e s e n c e  2 tests  strategy.  selected  retrodicts a  1.  Experiment  follow  b e n e f i t from  field-1,  object effect  on b o t h  selective  Experiment present  1, and i f  2 should  produce  and a b s e n t  trials.  76 Method The method Experiment the is  1 except  field-1  stimuli  2 was  t h e same a s t h a t of  t h e cue was p r e s e n t e d were d i s p l a y e d .  e a r l y , 40 ms  Note t h a t  this  was  turned  the screen  Results  and  until  As  i n Experiment  the subject  were: 486  present-inconsistent  526  absent-consistent  555  absent-inconsistent  576  orthogonal  comparisons  and  inconsistent conditions.  the  present-consistent  was  significant  (t(7)  ms  were made between  and p r e s e n t - i n c o n s i s t e n t  ( t ( 7 ) = 3.66,  conditions  p = 0.008) a s was  ( t ( 7 ) = 4.77,  between t h e s e  = 1.89,  consistent  conditions  indicating  that  and  The e r r o r  and 3.0%  the r e s u l t s  r a t e was  between  conditions t h e 21  ms  absent-  p = 0.002).  two d i f f e r e n c e s was  p = 0.100).  consistent  The d i f f e r e n c e o f 40 ms  between t h e a b s e n t - c o n s i s t e n t  inconsistent difference  remained  responded.  present-consistent  difference  1, t h e c u e  until  Discussion  The mean RTs  Planned  off.  before  e a r l y cue  e a r l i e r t h a n KTG's e a r l y c u e , w h i c h d i d n o t a p p e a r  field-1 on  of E x p e r i m e n t  not  The  19 ms  significant  1.6% f o r  for inconsistent  conditions,  a r e not the m a n i f e s t a t i o n  of a  speed-accuracy trade o f f . The r e s u l t s typical trials  of Experiment  of t h e l e t t e r were  responded  2 exemplify  the p a t t e r n  p r e v i e w e x p e r i m e n t s o f KTG: t o more r a p i d l y t h a n were  o f RTs  Consistent  inconsistent  77 trials.  In s h a r p c o n t r a s t  t o the r e s u l t s  presence  object  o b t a i n e d b o t h on  trials  and  on the  experiments 'present'  Experiment  trials  experiment  The  fact  on  evidenced The  to such  i n Experiment cue  that  the  i s an  was by  2,  certain.  two on  for  1,  21 ms  on  for  object  to the  a strategy  to select  on  be  and  sign  that  the  those of  strategy,  obtained.  the  weaker  follow.  strategy  were  than  following.  trials the  t h e r e may However,  of  object still  have  this  o p p o s i n g p r o c e s s , as  of t h e  that  But  implementation  'absent'  suggests  by a n o t h e r ,  this  a l t h o u g h whether presence  to characterize  like  precaution against  effect  'absent'  select-and-follow  can  i t appears  'present' t r i a l s ,  the p o s i t i v e  on  t o such a f o l l o w i n g  (nonsignificantly)  dominated  effect  the s e l e c t - a n d - f o l l o w  c o n t e n t i o n here w o u l d be  way  40 ms  under c o n d i t i o n s  adequate  the o b j e c t  2 was  re-viewing, best  1,  f o r Experiment  in contradiction  some t e n d e n c y  tendency  the  opposite consistency effects  results contrary  Experiment  been  ms  I t seems t h a t  early  effect  f o r Experiment  1 encouraging  that  an  (-23  peculiar  obtained of  (44 ms  Although  'present'  consistency effect  g e n e r a t i o n of a p o s i t i v e  hypothesis.  given  a similar  the  1, a  2).  stands  results  trials.  2) t h e y p r o d u c e d  trials  The  was  'absent'  produced  trials  Experiment 'absent'  effect  of Experiment  'absent' opposing  object  effect.  process i s  or b r i g h t n e s s i s the  the p r o p e r t y b e i n g re-viewed  i s not  78 Experiment Experiment the  feature  Therefore,  3 i s analogous  under  to Experiment  2 except  i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s not presence  consistency  than presence  3: S i z e  here  that  but s i z e .  refers to size consistency  rather  consistency.  Method Except Experiment  f o r the f o l l o w i n g  3 was t h e same a s t h a t  Stimuli. and  d i f f e r e n c e s , t h e method of  The i m p o r t a n t  Experiment  identical  2 i s i n the f i e l d - 1  lines) in  asterisk  i n Experiment  Experiment  asterisk  2 there  occurred  "Large"  key and " s m a l l "  hand  O r i g i n a l l y Experiment  a  large  field-1 earlier,  devising  d e c i s i o n priming,  conditions  small-consistent  r e s p o n s e s were made on t h e  3 included  involved  empty  selecting appropriate I n d e e d , even  small  two c o n t r o l  a normal  field-2  i n e a c h box, b u t an u n u s u a l  c o n s i s t i n g of f o u r  difficult. lexical  asterisk  of a blank  r e s p o n s e s were made on t h e l e f t -  These c o n d i t i o n s  or small  3 a  The e x p e r i m e n t a l  right-hand  conditions.  occurred  a n d two 0.4 deg l i n e s ) .  large-inconsistent,  small-inconsistent.  key.  2 there  For  a n d two 0.6 deg  i n Experiment  and P r o c e d u r e .  were l a r g e - c o n s i s t e n t , and  i n Experiment  stimuli.  But f o r e a c h o c c u r r e n c e  (two 0.6 deg l i n e s  Conditions  and f i e l d - 2  (two 0.9 deg l i n e s 3.  2.  d i f f e r e n c e between E x p e r i m e n t 3  e a c h o c c u r r e n c e of an a s t e r i s k an  of Experiment  boxes.  neutral  control  the d i f f i c u l t i e s prime  s o r t of  As m e n t i o n e d  i n the established  a suitable neutral  with  stimulus  stimuli i s  paradigm of associated that  itself  with  79 produces n e i t h e r f a c i l i t a t i o n overcome.  De G r o o t ,  the p o p u l a r ,  nor i n h i b i t i o n  Thomassen and Hudson  string-of-crosses "neutral"  t o an o v e r e s t i m a t i o n o f f a c i l i t a t i o n of  inhibition  i n the l e x i c a l  t h e word b l a n k even  this  as a n e u t r a l p r i m e ,  (1982) n o t e  that  prime may have l e d  and an  decision  have n o t been  underestimation  literature.  b u t then  They use  conclude  that  may n o t p r o v i d e a s u i t a b l e measure o f b a s e l i n e  pr iming. For current  two r e a s o n s experiment  experimental  the blank  control  were p r o b l e m a t i c .  trials  c o n d i t i o n s used First,  diverged too r a d i c a l l y  t h e c o n t r o l and  in perceptual  quality  t o be s t r i c t l y  comparable.  preview  trials  field-1  i n c l u d e d stimulus onsets  control  trials  i t d i d not.  blank  may  simply  the r e s u l t s  suggest  that a field-1  these  size  small  stimulus.  S e c o n d , as s u g g e s t e d  obtained with blank,  the c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s i n the c o n t e x t of  Therefore, although  conditions will  reader  will  find  each--only  R e s u l t s and D i s c u s s i o n mean RTs were:  the four  typical  be d i s c u s s e d h e n c e f o r t h . the data  as a  s i x c o n d i t i o n s were  The  for a l l six conditions  a d i s c u s s i o n o f them i n t h e A p p e n d i x .  The  above, a  j u d g m e n t s , assumes t h e same p e r c e p t u a l r o l e  experimental  and  and on t h e  respect to s i z e .  at l e a s t  run — i n 12 b l o c k s o f 32 t r i a l s  interested  F o r example, on t h e  n o t be n e u t r a l w i t h  Indeed,  i n the  80  Planned  large-consistent  515  large-inconsistent  540  small-consistent  557  small-ineonsi stent  583  o r t h o g o n a l comparisons  and  inconsistent  the  large-consistent  significant difference  conditions,  Consistent were was  conditions  i n d i c a t i n g that  of a s p e e d - a c c u r a c y  trials  inconsistent  trials.  That  was  obtained follow  obtained  the p a t t e r n  spatiotemporal Experiments  information  The  error  and 5.3% f o r the r e s u l t s a r e not  rapidly  than  i s , b o t h when t h e r e s p o n s e was  i n Experiment  considered  ms  small-  t o more  "small",  with the s i z e task.  with presence  was  trade o f f .  were r e s p o n d e d  " l a r g e " a n d when t h e r e s p o n s e  effect  and  t h e 26  ( t ( 1 1 ) = 4.41, p = 0.001).  for consistent  manifestation  between  and l a r g e - i n c o n s i s t e n t c o n d i t i o n s  conditions  2.8%  consistent  The d i f f e r e n c e of 25 ms  between t h e s m a l l - c o n s i s t e n t  inconsistent the  were made between  (t_( 1 1 ) = 4.63, p < 0.001) as was  inconsistent r a t e was  conditions.  ms  Like  an  object  the r e s u l t s  2, t h e s i z e r e s u l t s  t o be d e m o n s t r a t i v e of  integration.  4 a n d 5: P r e s e n c e  and S i z e  (Lonq-Duration-Preview  Ve r s i o n s ) The more  f i n d i n g that  consistent  r a p i d l y t h a n were  presence  inconsistent  and s i z e e x p e r i m e n t s  integration  of p r e s e n c e  hypothesis,  that  trials  were r e s p o n d e d  trials  implies  the  i n the  early-cue  spatiotemporal  and s i z e i n f o r m a t i o n .  the r e l a t i v e  to  A  rival  q u i c k n e s s of response  on  81 consistent box  trials  in field-1  field-2,  i s in fact  a r e s u l t of s e l e c t i n g t h e t a r g e t  and f o l l o w i n g  was e x p l o r e d  i t t o the cued  and r e j e c t e d .  location in  Another,  related  rival  h y p o t h e s i s h a s n o t been r u l e d o u t . Entertain subject  two s u p p o s i t i o n s .  confuses  initiates field.  a response  Second,  the  subject  box  in field-1.  effect  would  integration. be  initiated  actually  field-1  with  First,  field-2  to the f i r s t  suppose--and  this  i s somehow b i a s e d Under  and m i s t a k e n l y  rather  than  t o the second  i s the dangerous  toward  responding  these circumstances, a  r e s u l t f o r reasons other On c o n s i s t e n t and so c o u l d  appeared;  suppose t h a t the  trials  than  to the t a r g e t consistency  information  the c o r r e c t  be m a i n t a i n e d  on i n c o n s i s t e n t  part--that  response  when t h e t a r g e t  trials  the i n c o r r e c t  r e s p o n s e would be i n i t i a t e d  and so would need  and  r e s p o n s e when t h e t a r g e t  replaced  by t h e c o r r e c t  would  t o be i n h i b i t e d actually  appeared. Both is  upon w h i c h  b a s e d a r e weak on a p r i o r i  moment  that  behavior the  suppositions  grounds.  do r e s p o n d  i n the target  u n l i k e l y that  Assuming  t o the f i r s t  would n o t p r o d u c e a s p u r i o u s  stimulus  rather  subjects  this confusion  object  box were r e s p o n d e d  subjects  f o r the  field,  such  effect  unless  to.  Iti s  select the f i e l d - 1  stimulus  i n the target  subjects  would have t o work b a c k w a r d s from  the  box.  could  hypothesis  To r e s p o n d  to this  stimulus,  the p o s i t i o n of  c u e t o t h e moving b o x e s , d e t e r m i n e w h i c h o f t h o s e  was h e a d i n g  boxes  i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e c u e , and i n i t i a t e a  82 r e s p o n s e on  the  representation empty t a r g e t It  of  of  the  stimulus  box--all  i n 70  C e r t a i n l y the  responding number of strategy  to  field-1  consistent would  Inadvertent  attention  turn  response  contrast  Experiment  on  the  target  Furthermore,  the  two  when t h a t not  Despite thing  the  two  for  the  response.  e a r l y cue  now-  stimulus  often  fields  field-1  from  are  an  so  this  as  not.  equal  u n l i k e l y because,  Experiment  1  effectively  l o c a t i o n , away  to  to gain  trials,  is also  outcomes of  from  are  as  and directs  field-1.  spatially  s e l e c t i o n tends only  weakness of  the and  fields  fields  are  subject  the  only  may  hence may  to  distinct,  be  a  (Duncan,  1980), w h i c h  confusion  hypothesis,  are  not  fact  separated  by  4 and  respond  i n t e r m s of  distinct  w h i c h one  70  5 are  to  problem i t is  As  field-1  i s supposed to  and  a  well  to  i n which  temporally  the  temporally  ms.  designed  e f f e c t s under c o n d i t i o n s highly  that  d i s t i n g u i s h them  initially  Experiments  f e a t u r a l object  confusable  nothing  makes i t p l a u s i b l e i s the  field-2.  stimulus  would r e s p o n d  c o s t l y as  field-1  the  the  experiments.  stimulus  temporally, to  t o be  in s p a t i a l  that  consequence,  than  has  selection is d i f f i c u l t  in these  one  subject  inconsistent  to  2 suggests,  inhabited  purpose because there  and out  had  ms.  the  between the  confusion  that  subject  to  and  some s o r t of p e r s i s t i n g  i s u n l i k e l y that  anyway.  the  basis  rather test the  not  control  two  83 Method Display.  I n most  regards Experiments  same a s E x p e r i m e n t s  2 and 3 r e s p e c t i v e l y .  difference  i n Experiments  stimuli  was t h a t  remained  experiments.  o n s e t s o f t h e two f i e l d s  t h e y were now ms a f t e r  The m a j o r  4 and 5 t h e f i e l d - 1  on t h e s c r e e n f o r 800 ms r a t h e r  30 ms of t h e e a r l i e r the  4 and 5 were t h e  T h i s meant  field  140 ms b e f o r e t h e t a r g e t  that  f o r the  instead of  b e i n g s e p a r a t e d by o n l y  s e p a r a t e d by 870 ms.  the preview  than  100 ms,  The c u e was p r e s e n t e d 660  had been t u r n e d on, so i t a p p e a r e d  field,  just  as i t d i d i n E x p e r i m e n t s  2 and 3. Procedure.  Experiments  size  tasks respectively,  hour  session.  rest,  Experiment  Experiment practice  5 first.  trials  i n one e x p e r i m e n t ,  i n the o t h e r . Half  4 first  took a  of the subjects  and t h e o t h e r h a l f  In e a c h e x p e r i m e n t  preceded  p r e s e n c e and  were r u n t o g e t h e r i n a s i n g l e one  Subjects performed  and t h e n p e r f o r m e d  performed  4 and 5, i n v o l v i n g  performed  two b l o c k s o f 48  s i x b l o c k s o f 48 d a t a - c o l l e c t i o n  trials. R e s u l t s and D i s c u s s i o n The  mean RTs f o r E x p e r i m e n t present-consistent  431 ms  present-inconsistent  477  absent-consistent  460  absent-inconsistent  499  Planned o r t h o g o n a l comparisons and  4 were:  inconsistent  conditions.  were made between The d i f f e r e n c e  consistent  o f 46 ms between  .84 the  present-consistent  was  significant  difference  was  1.4%  p  (t(7)  conditions, of  mean RTs  a  =  speed-accuracy  for Experiment  493  small-consistent  513  small-inconsistent  544  the  large-consistent  significant difference  (t(7)  2.5%  the  for consistent conditions,  =  of  a  highly  distinguishable.  object  effect  a mere r e s p o n s e c o n f u s i o n addition,  these  i n which  object of  r e s u l t s are  the  error  for not  off.  of  consistent 25  ms  and  the  31  effect two  3.1%  ms  The  error  for  r e s u l t s here trade  fields the  can  stimulus  inconsistent  was  small-  the  neither  between  conditions  be  too  off.  experiments produced  Therefore,  size  ms  r e s u l t s are  speed-accuracy  preview  e f f e c t s under c o n d i t i o n s  the  The  p < 0.001).  conditions  object  nor  5.55,  was and  i n d i c a t i n g that  manifestation  2.8%  difference  0.047) as  (t(7)  39  absent-  were made between The  p =  the  the  trade  small-consistent  Both l o n g - d u r a t i o n  and  large-inconsistent  = 2.41,  conditions  inconsistent not  and  between the  inconsistent  are  conditions.  and  the  ms  518  inconsistent  was  5 were:  large-inconsistent  and  conditions  p = 0.001).  i n d i c a t i n g that  Planned orthogonal comparisons  was  5.39,  conditions  large-consistent  rate  = 0.001) as  absent-consistent  for consistent  manifestation The  present-inconsistent  = 5.07,  conditions  inconsistent the  (t(7)  between the  inconsistent rate  and  1 and  clear 2 were  presence attributed  fields.  w i t h any  to  In  suggestion  85 that  the  object  effect  may  depend on  b e c a u s e the  duration  of  to  stimulus  duration  (Coltheart,  be  no  visible  stimulus  Lollo, The  It  has  physical has  not  on  question. do  not  Of  interest  on  other  the  now  A slightly experiments  foregoing  features of  the  of  of  that  the  of  same v a l u e  because they  are  effects.  It  interact  independently  stimulus  pair?  one  The  experiments  feature  physical property  is  this  duodimension  just  or  pair affected  t o answer  perspective  be  important  considered  stimulus  on  dimension.  in addition  the  identity.  because the  along wholly  the  to  duodimension  because they in  property  p r e s e n c e or  i n the  stimuli.  not  supposedly whether  foregoing  i n the size  do  the  It i s uncertain  stimuli  identical  the  a confound  o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c advantage observed  the  involving  spatiotemporal  designed  r e v e a l s them t o be  experiments obtains  ms  response.  different  t e s t e d and  tasks  a target-preview  features  i s another  that  re-viewed  m o n o d i m e n s i o n e x p e r i m e n t s between being  1000  physical properties  consistency  from what may  of a  probably  Experiments  name s u g g e s t s ,  controlling  offset  would  to generate object  experiments are  As  the  i n t e r m s of  feature  i n v o l v e the  one  suffer  Are  one  consistency  duodimension  the  able  i n t e g r a t i o n , how  consistency by  i n the  been d e t e r m i n e d ,  another.  is inversely related  1980).  p r o p e r t i e s are  one  persistence,  1980); t h e r e  Duodimension  been shown  information with  such p e r s i s t e n c e  persistence after  ( c f . Di  visible  t a r g e t box  dimension, I f the  or  object  are  86 effect  depends e x c l u s i v e l y  on s t i m u l u s i d e n t i t y ,  positive  results  evidence  of the s p a t i o t e m p o r a l i n t e g r a t i o n  properties after  i n the foregoing  then the  e x p e r i m e n t s a r e not of p h y s i c a l  all. S u b j e c t s and A p p a r a t u s  All  experiments  University  drew from  of B r i t i s h  corrected-to-normal subjects.  Columbia  vision,  Some i n d i v i d u a l s  experiment,  Experiment  Experiments  f i v e monodimension  the  same PDP  head  rest  of  i n more t h a n one  Experiment 12 s u b j e c t s ;  Intecolor  that  but u n l i k e  For experiments  controlled the e a r l i e r  terminal  Experiments  the previous experiments a  was used w i t h  7.  Systems  the s u b j e c t .  A  this  G1341 v o i c e key  Otherwise  8 and 9 was t h e same as t h a t  1 through  8 and 9  model BS0C)1G--was employed.  A m i c r o p h o n e and a G e r b r a n d s  Experiments  and E x p e r i m e n t s  terminal—an Intelligent  r e s p o n s e s from  eight  t h e same a p p a r a t u s u s e d i n  experiments.  11/34 computer was u s e d ,  6 employed  subjects.  without a viewing f i l t e r  terminal. accepted  performed  8 and 9.  24  graphics display  Corporation  s e r v e d as p a i d v o l u n t e e r  6 and 7 i n v o l v e d  the  color  s t u d e n t s , w i t h normal or  7 employed  8 and 9 e a c h employed  experiments  population.  a l t h o u g h no o v e r l a p was a l l o w e d between t h e  s u b j e c t s of experiments subjects;  t h e same s u b j e c t  the apparatus  employed i n  87 Experiment  6:  Presence  (Shape as  Response-Irrelevant  Dimension) Method Stimuli display  and  and was  Display. i n most  presence experiment, that  Experiment  6 involved  and  two  0.6  (four  0.6  deg  l i n e s ) as  deg  i n the  both a s t e r i s k s or Conditions  and  collection respond told  that  the  same as The  only  the  asterisks  The  but  two  also  and  0.9  was  deg  diamonds  figures  presented  same, e i t h e r  diamonds. T h e r e were f i v e  (consistent  shape),  As  conditions:  present-consistent-2 absent-consistent  Two  40-trial  blocks  of  practice  15,  40-trial  blocks  of  data-  the  shape of  Results  four-box  basic  (two  were a l w a y s the  in Experiment  2,  p r e s e n c e or a b s e n c e of a  "present"  the  major d i f f e r e n c e  blanks,  Procedure.  before  respond  The  6 utilized  shape), p r e s e n t - i n c o n s i s t e n t ,  trials.  t o the  2.  stimuli.  absent-inconsistent.  were p e r f o r m e d  the  l i n e s ) and  both  and  not  same f i e l d  present-consistent-1 (inconsistent  respects  Experiment  lines  concurrently  Experiment  the  stimulus  the  subjects  stimulus;  d i d not  i f e i t h e r shape a p p e a r e d  were  they  m a t t e r and i n the  cued  to  were to box.  Discussion  mean RTs  were:  present-consistent-1  (consistent  shape)  present-consistent-2  ( i n c o n s i s t e n t shape)  398 41 1  present-inconsistent  427  absent-consistent  438  absent-inconsistent  453  ms  88 The  typical  and  absent-inconsistent  15 ms  planned  comparison  d i f f e r e n c e was  between t h e  conditions  significant  was  29  ms  d i f f e r e n c e between t h e  (consistent was  s h a p e ) and  significant  between t h e  shape) and  the  ms  p = 0.031).  conditions that  two  the  accuracy As  and  i n the  consistent  not  the  previous  feature That but  effect  t a r g e t and  itself  the  ms  was  d i f f e r e n c e of  for  13  (t_(7) =  consistent  manifestation  of  a  speed-  were r e s p o n d e d  obtains,  other  The  albeit are  than  in Experiment  6  t o more r a p i d l y t h a n  new  f i n d i n g here  i s that  to a l e s s e r extent,  inconsistent with  the  one  controlling  i s , shape d i s p a r i t y r e d u c e d  the  presence  Experiment  16  (inconsistent  significant  3.0%  experiments,  i t s preview  dimension  d i d not  the  off.  conditions  object  conditions  Likewise  The  r a t e was  were i n c o n s i s t e n t c o n d i t i o n s . this  conditions.  conditions  p = 0.002).  error  0.003).  for inconsistent conditions, i n d i c a t i n g  r e s u l t s are trade  p = 0.002).  e f f e c t s was  The  5.1%  'present'  present-consistent-2  ( t ( 7 ) = 4.83,  p =  present-consistent-1  present-inconsistent  between t h e s e  2.69,  the  the r e s u l t i n g  present-inconsistent  ( t ( 7 ) = 4.77,  difference  significant  the  made and  ( t ( 7 ) = 4.46,  T h r e e c o m p a r i s o n s were made w i t h i n The  absent-consistent  when  respect  to a  response.  object  effect  eliminate i t . 7:  Size  (Shape as  Response-Irrelevant  Dimension)  Method Stimuli display  and  and was  Display.  Experiment  s i m i l a r to Experiment  7 utilized 3,  except  the  four-box  t h a t , as  in  89 experiment employed  6, s t i m u l i o f two s h a p e s were u s e d .  two s i z e s o f a s t e r i s k and two s i z e s o f diamond.  L a r g e a s t e r i s k s were composed 0.6 deg l i n e s and s m a l l deg  o f two 0.9 deg l i n e s and two  a s t e r i s k s were composed  l i n e s and two 0.4 deg l i n e s . of four  0.6 deg l i n e s and s m a l l  composed  of four  0.4 deg l i n e s .  limitations asterisk  only  Conditions contained trials  were  and  blocks  Eight  to the  conditions  I f t h e diamond  response  box a l w a y s  in field-1,  large-inconsistent,  key was t o be p r e s s e d .  satisfactorily  typical  smalli n the cued  key was t o be p r e s s e d ,  i n t h e c u e d box was s m a l l ,  a f t e r two 4 8 - t r i a l  Results  the four  the right-hand  i f t h e diamond  response run  however,  small-inconsistent.  box was l a r g e and  Because the t a r g e t  i n f i e l d - 2 and an a s t e r i s k  large-consistent,  consistent,  were  i n f i e l d - 2 and o n l y  shape i n c o n s i s t e n t . W i t h r e s p e c t  response dimension existed:  diamonds  in field-1.  and P r o c e d u r e .  a diamond  were  Due t o programmer  diamond s h a p e s a p p e a r e d  shapes appeared  o f two 0.6  L a r g e diamonds  composed  all  Experiment 7  the l e f t - h a n d  48-trial  of p r a c t i c e  trials  blocks  were  had been  completed.  Discussion  The mean RTs were:  The u s u a l  large-consistent  500 ms  large-inconsistent  498  small-consistent  510  small-inconsistent  519  planned orthogonal  c o m p a r i s o n s were made between  90 consistent  and  inconsistent  ms  between  the  large-consistent  conditions  was  not  The  significant  d i f f e r e n c e of  9 ms  small-inconsistent = 2.05,  was  The  not  error  and  for  inconsistent  effects. preview it  did  the  eliminates This effect  r a t e was  7 failed  does not  s u r p r i s i n g to  the  full  damping  o t h e r w i s e have.  find  'small'  that  perceptible.  In  short,  approximate  small-target that  on  with  the  small  almost  to  was  object targeteffect  likely  object  stimuli i t is d o e s not  smaller,  t o become  less  shape-inconsistent stimuli.  nonsignificant significant.  on  the  rather  have  e f f e c t i t might  s t i m u l i get  focus  as  nearly  small  s i z e object  them a r e  best  the  inconsistency  shape-consistent  r e s u l t s are  they are  shape  very  l e a s t , i t i s probably  conditions  i n the  that  conditions  i s b e c a u s e , as  shape d i f f e r e n c e s between  p =  inconsistency  seem b r a s h g i v e n  influence This  = 2.05,  size object  shape  However, when d e a l i n g  not  fact  reduce the  effect.  the  (t(11 )  two  significant  shape i n c o n s i s t e n c y  merely  may  and  significant  (t(11)  t o p r o d u c e any  size object  on  not  for consistent  the  significant.  at  2.3%  0.704).  small-consistent  either  effect;  conclusion  large-inconsistent  also  presence object  witnessed  visually  was  2  conditions.  I t appears that pair  d i f f e r e n c e of  ( t ( 1 1 ) = -0.39, p =  significant  The  Experiment  The  d i f f e r e n c e between t h e s e  0.065). 3.0%  and  between the  conditions  p = 0.065).  differences  conditions.  stimuli  Thus, fact than  for  that on  now  the the  91 Experiment  8: C o l o r  (Letter-Shape  as R e s p o n s e - I r r e l e v a n t  Dimension) The The  final  four-box  physical  experiments  and t h e moving  instantiations  employed  generated  p r o p e r t i e s , so i f - - a s  manipulation  then  two e x p e r i m e n t s  the Ternus  object effects  display. with  KTG b e l i e v e — t h e T e r n u s  line-figure  manipulation are  o f t h e same o b j e c t - o r g a n i z a t i o n p r i n c i p l e ,  the Ternus experiments  should  generate  featural  object  e f f e c t s too. Beyond s i m p l y object of  effect,  affording  the Ternus design  s t i m u l u s placement  responsible that  inconsistent this for  adjacency  explanation  only varies  when n o n a d j a c e n t . adjacency  selecting  the c o r r e c t  occupy a d j a c e n t  trials  boxes on Perhaps  i s somehow r e s p o n s i b l e on s u c h  trials.  i s n o t c o n v i n c i n g however.  be j u s t  Furthermore,  between  4.0 deg when a d j a c e n t  Because t h e t a r g e t l o c a t i o n  would p r o b a b l y  target selection  s t i m u l u s might it.  i s not  may have n o t i c e d  but n o t on c o n s i s t e n t t r i a l s .  pre-cued,  that  experiments  d i s t a n c e between t h e t a r g e t and t h e t a r g e t - c o n g r u e n t  distractor deg  peculiarity  t h e t a r g e t and t h e t a r g e t -  slowness of response  adjacency  of the f e a t u r a l  that a  The r e a d e r  of f i e l d - 2  on i n c o n s i s t e n t  the r e l a t i v e The  The  trials  success. experiments  distractor  ensures  i n the four-box  for their  i n the four-box  congruent  a generalization  an a d j a c e n t  as l i k e l y  is clearly  not cause c o n f u s i o n i n  s t i m u l u s t o respond i s easy,  a n d 5.6  to.  Indeed,  given  target-congruent  to decrease  RT a s i n c r e a s e  a t 4.0 deg s e p a r a t i o n , t h e s t i m u l i  are not  92 very  "adjacent"  sensory for  anyway, n e i t h e r  i n t e r a c t i o n (Bouma,  Fortunately,  Ternus experiments are It letter  should  be  mechanisms m i g h t a letter  may  well-learned object  This the  term  adjacency  that  the 8  not  function  label  best  remind  B e c a u s e of  i s probably  response-irrelevant  the  way  cannot  the  has  reader  the  important  not  shape  be  the  less-  that  even w i t h  factor with  v a r i a t i o n , i t may  the  same way  although  the  Special  so  been o p t e d  that  the  adjacency.  evidence  level  be  to d e s c r i b e  letters,  a perceptual  the  1981).  is uncertain.  in cognition  "letter-shape"  issue  such  for  potential  e f f e c t s in  a t t r i b u t a b l e to  exist for processing  should  letter  not  s h a p e s do.  the  the  in Experiment  e f f e c t occurs at  stimuli,  i n terms of  f e a t u r a l object  mentioned  "dimension"  nor  potential  ( c f . Hoffman & N e l s o n ,  these arguments,  dismissed.  of  1978)  "attentional spillover" Despite  i n terms of  the lexical  for  herein.  the  shape  respect only  of  to  one.  Method Stimuli display that  and  virtually  here the  rather  Display.  than  identical  with a c e n t r a l  white  fixation  (see  dot  e i t h e r above or  the  screen  so  deg  above or  to  s t i m u l i appeared  in only  take p l a c e d  Experiment  that 1.5  fixation  the  deg  the  dot  of  d i f f e r e n t c o l o r and  Figure deg).  below  centers  disappeared  one  in five  (0.1  below t h a t  ms  the  of  8 utilized used by  a  KTG  Ternus except  different colors 2).  Each t r i a l  The  display  began  could  the  horizontal midline  the  letters  imaginary and  were e i t h e r  line.  immediately  d i f f e r e n t letter-shape  of  After two  were  1.5  1000  letters presented  93 (colors: U). to  red, yellow,  green,  The g a p of 3.7 deg t h a t c e n t e r ) was b i s e c t e d  blue,  white;  separated  s h a p e s : A, E, I , 0,  these  by t h e v e r t i c a l  letters  mid-line  (center  of t h e  screen. After screen  and a f t e r  appeared color  target  the other  field-1 fourth  of f i e l d - 2  three  letter  the l e t t e r s  offset  letter.  stimulus  centered letters.  appeared  to the  locations.  This  or l e t t e r - s h a p e  i n the d i s p l a y .  Like  letter  a s any  t h e two  and t h e e c c e n t r i c  3.7 deg a p a r t  center  to center.  in rectangular  1.0 deg h i g h and 0.4 deg w i d e . letter  was d i s p l a y e d  i t seemed t o move  f r o m one o f t h e f i e l d - 1 outer  letter  of t h e f i e l d - 1  to arrive letter  as i n f i e l d - 1 .  of f i e l d - 2  target  possible  the f i e l d - 1  a p p e a r e d were drawn  the t a r g e t  direction  field-1  letters  that  because the f o u r t h ,  appeared  three  five  just  letters  i n terms of  perfectly  had h e l d  letter  the c e n t r a l  of f i e l d - 1 ,  position  appeared  that  were d i s p l a y e d  graphics c e l l s  the  shapes,  was n o t t h e same c o l o r  letters,  Because  from one a n o t h e r  letter  of the other  letter  o f 49 ms two f i e l d - 2  t h e r e were  t h e two l o c a t i o n s  or r i g h t  fourth  All  letter  were removed from t h e  Again,  t h e same t i m e t h e o t h e r  left  of  possible  letters  delay  were d i f f e r e n t  and f i v e  between At  that  a further  and l e t t e r - s h a p e .  colors The  300 ms t h e f i e l d - 1  either  o r from  Therefore,  letter also  the  i t s central  l o c a t i o n s ; and  appeared  locations,  to a r r i v e  the target  from t h e d i r e c t i o n  the d i r e c t i o n  only  into  soon a f t e r  of the l e f t  of the r i g h t  one o f t h e f i e l d - 1  letter  field-1  letters  was  from  94 perceptually  linked  with  the t a r g e t  To make l o c a l i z a t i o n rectangular the  paper cues  of the t a r g e t e a s i e r ,  vertical  two  (1.0 deg x 2.9 deg) were a t t a c h e d t o  s u r f a c e of the s c r e e n .  imaginary  letter.  B o t h were p l a c e d a l o n g t h e  m i d - l i n e of t h e s c r e e n ,  one p r o j e c t i n g  down f r o m t h e t o p o f t h e s c r e e n  and t h e o t h e r  from  E a c h cue e x t e n d e d  t h e bottom o f t h e s c r e e n .  1.0 deg from t h e t a r g e t l o c a t i o n subject and  responded,  the screen  i t designated.  t h e two l e t t e r s  remained  blank  p r o j e c t i n g up  of f i e l d - 2  to a point Once t h e  were removed  f o r an i n t e r t r i a l  i n t e r v a l of  900 ms. Conditions. were  The b a s i s o f t h e e x p e r i m e n t a l  feature relations  i n the target-preview  consistent  c o n d i t i o n s a preview  in  i n the target-yoked  field-1  inconsistent appeared  color-control not  location.  consistent, there  letter  letter-inconsistent  were n i n e Procedure.  trials,  first  of the t a r g e t  c o n d i t i o n s a preview  f o r each of three  experimental  color location.  In  These t h r e e c o l o r conditions  conditions  (letter-  and l e t t e r - c o n t r o l ) ,  and so  conditions in total.  The e x p e r i m e n t  trials.  appeared  of the t a r g e t c o l o r d i d  was r u n i n b l o c k s  two b l o c k s o f p r a c t i c e  data-collection  In c o l o r -  In c o l o r -  but i n the t a r g e t - n o n y o k e d  a p p e a r anywhere i n f i e l d - 1 .  existed  pair.  of the t a r g e t c o l o r  c o n d i t i o n s a preview  in field-1  conditions  trials  then  o f 36 15 b l o c k s o f  A message a p p e a r e d on t h e s c r e e n  requesting  the s u b j e c t t o begin  the c e n t e r  t e l e g r a p h key.  the experiment  The s u b j e c t ' s t a s k  by p r e s s i n g i n Experiment 8  95 was t o v o c a l l y " t o move Results  into and  report  the c o l o r  the c e n t e r  of t h e l e t t e r  that  appeared  of the s c r e e n " .  Discussion  The mean RTs f o r t h e l e t t e r - c o n s i s t e n t c o n d i t i o n s color-consistent  556 ms  color-inconsistent  573  color-control  611  The mean RTs f o r t h e l e t t e r - i n c o n s i s t e n t c o n d i t i o n s color-consistent  572 ms  color-inconsistent  580  color-control  619  The mean RTs f o r t h e l e t t e r - c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s color-consistent  570 ms  color-inconsistent  586  color-control  616  of v a r i a n c e  consistency  had a s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t on c o l o r  o f t h e d a t a was p e r f o r m e d .  46) = 94.6, p < 0 . 0 0 1 ) .  significant < 0.001).  t(23)  Letter  main e f f e c t on c o l o r  consistency  response  Color response also  had a  ( F ( 2 , 46) = 8.91, p  The i n t e r a c t i o n e f f e c t was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t ( F ( 4 ,  92) = 1.22, p = 0 . 3 0 8 ) . produced  were:  were:  An a n a l y s i s  (F(2,  were:  Thus, a c o l o r  when l e t t e r - s h a p e  = 3.32, p = 0 . 0 0 3 ) ,  = 0.042) o r c o n t r o l  was c o n s i s t e n t  inconsistent  object  by c o n s i s t e n c y  shape d i m e n s i o n .  e f f e c t was (16 ms,  (9 ms, t ( 2 3 ) = 2.15, p  (17 ms, t ( 2 3 ) = 3.58; p = 0.002).  magnitude of the c o l o r influenced  condition  object  Shape  The  e f f e c t was n o t s i g n i f i c a n t l y  on t h e r e s p o n s e - i r r e l e v a n t , inconsistency  neither  letter-  reduced the  96 object  e f f e c t as i t d i d with the presence  eliminated rather,  i tleft  An the  the object  e f f e c t as i t d i d w i t h t h e s i z e  the color  informative  object  pattern  effect  condition,  566 ms  color-inconsistent  580  color-control  615  c o l o r was p r e v i e w e d  location,  naming  target  0.001). yoked  color  color  was p r e v i e w e d  was an a d d i t i o n a l  = 3.94, p < 0.001).  Note t h a t  e f f e c t i s large  location-specific t(23)  i n the target-nonyoked  r e s p o n s e s were 35 ms q u i c k e r  When t h e t a r g e t  nonspecific  across  t h a n when  was n o t p r e v i e w e d a t a l l (j:(23) = 9.04, p <  l o c a t i o n , there  (t(23)  within  t h e RTs were:  When t h e t a r g e t  the  unaltered.  Averaged  color-consistent  color  task;  of r e s u l t s was g e n e r a t e d  main e f f e c t o f c o l o r c o n s i s t e n c y .  letter-shape  task, nor  relative  i n the target-  14 ms o f RT a d v a n t a g e  i n Experiment  8 the  t o the a s s o c i a t e d  a d v a n t a g e or o b j e c t  effect  (21 ms l a r g e r ,  = 3.35, p = 0.003). Experiment  9: L e t t e r  (Color  as R e s p o n s e - I r r e l e v a n t  Dimension) The  preceding  response-irrelevant the  duodimension dimension.  response-irrelevant  controlling perfect  response.  to i t .  responses,  Experiment  Experiment  In t h i s  9 also  as the dimension  way E x p e r i m e n t 8 a n d so w i l l  By r e q u i r i n g l e t t e r serves  shape a s t h e  9 uses c o l o r as  dimension and l e t t e r  r e v e r s a l of Experiment  comparison  experiments used  9 constitutes a provide  a useful  identification  to reunite  the present  97 project  w i t h t h e KTG  experiments.  Method Conditions required  of the subject,  experiment  8.  experiments. the  and P r o c e d u r e .  color  In f a c t ,  subject  vocally  ignored  i t s color.  comprising comprised Results The  The  The  An  Experiment  reported  9 was i d e n t i c a l t o  9, r a t h e r  letter  program  that  the l e t t e r  r a n both  vocally  and i g n o r i n g  i t s shape, the  9 were a n a l o g o u s  conditions  to those  that  8.  and D i s c u s s i o n mean RTs f o r t h e c o l o r - c o n s i s t e n t letter-consistent  450 ms  letter-inconsistent  473  letter-control  479  conditions  mean RTs f o r t h e c o l o r - i n c o n s i s t e n t c o n d i t i o n s letter-consistent  454 ms  letter-inconsistent  469  letter-control  478  mean RTs f o r t h e c o l o r - c o n t r o l c o n d i t i o n s letter-consistent  452 ms  letter-inconsistent  471  letter-control  475  a n a l y s i s of variance  consistency (F(2,  reporting  name o f t h e t a r g e t and  The n i n e e x p e r i m e n t a l  Experiment Experiment  f o r the response  t h e same computer  In Experiment  of the target  Except  46) = 54.3, p < 0 . 0 0 1 ) .  main e f f e c t on l e t t e r Color  were:  were:  o f t h e d a t a was p e r f o r m e d .  had a s i g n i f i c a n t  were:  consistency  Letter response  d i d n o t have  98 a  s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t on l e t t e r  response  ( F ( 2 , 46) =  0.507, p = 0.606) but t h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between Thus,  t h e s e two f a c t o r s  a letter  condition  ms, M 2 3 )  The d i f f e r e n c e was c o n s i s t e n t  reduce The  the  the l e t t e r  and when c o l o r  most  object  8 ms r e d u c t i o n  only  here  influence  of l e t t e r - s h a p e  influence  of c o l o r  8 ms.  observed  however, i s  of the f a c t  that  on t h e l e t t e r  object  object  consistency  a f f e c t s the c o l o r  object object  8, a  be made between t h e  a p p r o x i m a t i o n t o make, t h e n ,  e f f e c t and t h e  effect. i s that  effect effect:  Perhaps t h e color  like They  letter have  on one a n o t h e r .  t h e main e f f e c t o f l e t t e r  results  of Experiment  9 are quite  results  of Experiment  8.  RTs were:  was  inconsistency  i n Experiment  on t h e c o l o r  a f f e c t s the l e t t e r  the  so c o l o r  In view  justifiably  consistency  Within  was i n c o n s i s t e n t  effect.  8 ms r e d u c t i o n  o r no impact  effect  i s no d i f f e r e n t t h a n t h e  sharp d i s t i n c t i o n cannot  little  object  s t r i k i n g aspect of t h i s r e d u c t i o n ,  i t i s so s l i g h t ,  first  by c o l o r  between t h e l e t t e r  ( t ( 2 3 ) = 3.28, p = 0.003),  nonsignificant  best  The m a g n i t u d e o f t h e l e t t e r  e f f e c t was s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n f l u e n c e d  significant  color  (23 ms, t ( 2 3 ) = 8.43, p < 0.001),  = 5.62, p < 0.001).  when c o l o r  that  when  (15 ms, t ( 2 3 ) = 5.75, p < 0.001) and c o n t r o l (19  consistency.  did  e f f e c t was p r o d u c e d  was c o n s i s t e n t  inconsistent  object  object  ( F ( 4 , 92) = 2.74, p = 0.033).  Averaged  consistency,  distinct  from  across color  the  the analogous condition,  99 letter-consistent  452 ms  letter-inconsistent  471  letter-control  477  Letter  naming  r e s p o n s e s were o n l y  target  letter  was p r e v i e w e d  than  the  p = 0.005). target-yoked  RT a d v a n t a g e  there  was p r e v i e w e d i n  was an a d d i t i o n a l 19 ms o f  ( t ( 2 3 ) = 7.72, p < 0 . 0 0 1 ) .  Experiment  9 the n o n s p e c i f i c e f f e c t  associated  location-specific  ms s m a l l e r ,  location  was n o t p r e v i e w e d a t a l l ( t ( 2 3 ) =  When t h e t a r g e t l e t t e r location,  when t h e  i n the target-nonyoked  when t h e t a r g e t l e t t e r  3.12,  6 ms q u i c k e r  Note  i s small  advantage  that in relative  or o b j e c t  to the  effect  (13  t ( 2 3 ) = -3.95, p < 0 . 0 0 1 ) . GENERAL DISCUSSION The  T h e r e were t w e l v e of  experiments.  effect The  on l e t t e r  object  f i n d i n g s of the p r e s e n t  series  (a) Kahneman e t a l . ' s ( i n p r o g r e s s )  object  naming was c o r r o b o r a t e d  9).  effect  was p r o d u c e d  stimulus  classification  presence  (Experiment  on  a response  according The  color that  according  2).  effect  involving stimulus  classification  (Experiment the object  were n o t s i m p l y  8).  effects  effect  size  the r e s u l t  was p r o d u c e d  (Experiment  t o the p h y s i c a l  i n the four-box  of s u b j e c t s  3).  (d)  task i n v o l v i n g  (e) I t was e x p e r i m e n t a l l y produced  property  classification  on a r e s p o n s e  according  (b)  task i n v o l v i n g  t o the p h y s i c a l  ( c ) The o b j e c t  was p r o d u c e d  (Experiment  on a r e s p o n s e  t o the p h y s i c a l p r o p e r t y  object  stimulus  task  major  Results  property demonstrated experiments  s e l e c t i n g and  1 00 following  a field-1  (Experiments result  of s u b j e c t s  confusing  object  effect  the r e s p o n s e - i r r e l e v a n t  (h) The s i z e  object  the  response-irrelevant  (i)  The c o l o r o b j e c t  slightly dimension large  8).  reduced  dimension  effect  (Experiment  small  i t supported  (Experiment  i t supported  and  several  speculative. experiments confound  experiments, were o b t a i n e d  on  (Experiment 7 ) . by  inconsistency  effect  was o n l y  very  on t h e r e s p o n s e - i r r e l e v a n t  9).  (k) C o l o r  8).  supported a  relative  (1) L e t t e r relative  on t h e S i z e  to the o b j e c t supported a to the object  drawn  from  stimulus being  Findings  results are questionable,  them must be  previously,  a r e i n c o n c l u s i v e on t h e i r  feature dimension  not  object  the s i z e  As d i s c u s s e d  overall  (Experiment 6 ) .  (Experiment 9 ) .  reasons  any c o n c l u s i o n s  inconsistency  of l e t t e r - s h a p e  facilitation  Qualifications For  4 and 5 ) .  by i n c o n s i s t e n c y  o f shape  facilitation  non-object-specific  effect  o f shape  dimension  by i n c o n s i s t e n c y  of c o l o r  by  was u n a f f e c t e d  ( j ) The l e t t e r  non-object-specific  effect  was r e d u c e d  was e l i m i n a t e d  the response-irrelevant  (Experiment  (Experiments  dimension  effect  e f f e c t s the  t h e two f i e l d s a n d  responding to f i e l d - 1  (g) The p r e s e n c e  on  location in field-2  1 and 2 ) ; ( f ) n o r were t h e s e o b j e c t  inappropriately  on  box t o i t s t e r m i n a l  identity  considered  the monodimension own b e c a u s e  with i d e n t i t y  investigated.  completely i d e n t i c a l .  on t h e  In d u o d i m e n s i o n  p r e s e n c e , c o l o r and l e t t e r - s h a p e even when t h e s t i m u l i  they  object  giving rise  The same c a n n o t  effects  t o them were  be s a i d f o r t h e  101 size an  object  effect.  I t ,therefore,  identity  effect.  Size  simply sort  n o t be s u b j e c t  under  information  i n and o f i t s e l f  to spatiotemporal  against  identity  difference  this  possibility  made l i t t l e  attributed  o r no d i f f e r e n c e  the e n t i r e s i z e  to stimulus  unreasonable,  monodimension size  identity  therefore,  size object  effect,  having  eliminated  this  on  the r e s p o n s e - i r r e l e v a n t  i n the l e t t e r -  a modest  Consequently, i t  object  effect  independent  of s i z e .  as i n fact  having  involving  and t h e duodimension  effect  even se,  object  the c o n c l u s i o n  size  object For  treat  dimension  effect  that  effect shape  is itself  one t h i n g , t h i s  as negative  significance.  For another  according  c a n be c o n s i d e r e d inconsistency  in tasks  to a  ( c f . F e l f o l d y , 1974).  However,  genuine per  e l i m i n a t e s the  suspect. r e s t s on t h e c h o i c e t o  narrowly miss  thing,  duodimension experiments,  the s i z e  classification  of o n l y  of s t i m u l i  by change on  i s not unprecedented  conclusion  r e s u l t s that  inconsistency  of s h a p e .  of s t i m u l i  p h y s i c a l dimension  i f the s i z e  is  experiment  by i n t r o d u c i n g  dimension  the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  particular  It  generated a  Such an e l i m i n a t i o n of a r e p e t i t i o n e f f e c t response-irrelevant  c a n be  t o t e n t a t i v e l y i n t e r p r e t the  experiment  as  a  may  i s the f i n d i n g that  i n the presence experiment.  seems u n l i k e l y t h a t  genuine  than  i n t e g r a t i o n of the  shape and c o l o r e x p e r i m e n t s , a n d made o n l y  not  more  study.  Arguing stimulus  may be n o t h i n g  statistical  unlike the other experiment one shape.  involved Targets  size were  1 a l w a y s diamonds and p r e v i e w s  02  were a l w a y s a s t e r i s k s .  failure  t o p r o d u c e an o b j e c t e f f e c t  do  the f a c t  with  response Chmiel,  choice  to treat  albeit  never  justified  the n e a r - s i g n i f i c a n t  size Tipper &  i n the present  field-1  7).  context  cannot  even  that  it  seems u n l i k e l y  on  t h e b a s i s o f whether o r n o t t h e y  required  replication stimuli  i n absolute  diamonds a p p e a r i n g Analysis Although forward  i t i s clear  size  size  t h a t what i s  experiment  and w i t h  both  isa  but with  a s t e r i s k s and  as t a r g e t s . Experiments  t h e monodimension d e s i g n  i s t h e most  t o the i s s u e of f e a t u r a l  forms t h e f o u n d a t i o n duodimension design  of the p r e s e n t t h a t has y i e l d e d  (every property  t e s t e d i n such  object  the duodimension  investigation, the r i c h e s t  experiments results  straight  o b j e c t e f f e c t s and  t o the u n i f o r m i t y of the monodimension  effect),  excluded  had been a s s o c i a t e d w i t h  of the Duodimension  approach  contrast  processing  c o n c l u s i o n s c a n be drawn  of the duodimension  larger  from  paradigm  w o u l d be so e f f e c t i v e l y  Nevertheless,  b e f o r e any f i r m  t o be  in response-irrelevant locations,  t h a t they  before.  argued  i n the preview  be e x c l u d e d  t h e b a s i s of a p p e a r i n g  response  as negative,  (see R e s u l t s and D i s c u s s i o n  Second, g i v e n  stimuli  results  F i r s t , the  one t o make, h a s been  on  a  (cf. Allport,  a r e not u n c o n t e s t a b l e .  a comfortable  Experiment  the  h a d t o make a  in press).  T h e s e two c r i t i c i s m s  of  may have h a d s o m e t h i n g t o  t h a t s u b j e c t s never  to asterisk-shaped stimuli  The  i t i s the  data.  In  results  supported  an  were d i f f e r e n t f o r  103 each p r o p e r t y .  The d u o d i m e n s i o n  allowed a s p e c i a l comparison  experiments  8 and 9 a l s o  of t h e p r o p e r t i e s  c o l o r and  letter-shape. The to  d i f f e r e n c e s between p h y s i c a l p r o p e r t i e s  the object  differences presence  e f f e c t are almost  between  w h o l e , and t h a t any  other  easy  interesting  distal a  object  stimulus.  able  properties  that  gives  object-specific  on  size  Color  as w e l l  i s dependent  them t h e i r  Instead,  Future  does n o t a t t e m p t  spatial  research  roles  may  i n the  information.  s u c h an  a u s e f u l a n a l y s i s c a n be b a s e d between  experiments.  outcomes o f t h e d u o d i m e n s i o n  obtained:  In one e x p e r i m e n t  inconsistency  irrelevant  dimension  experiment  i t d i d not i n t e r a c t a t a l l with  eliminated  unique  particular physical  i n t e g r a t i o n of  i n the duodimension  p o s s i b l e major  having  upon  distinctive  the types of i n t e r a c t i o n observed  properties  of a  t o each point of  as p o s s i b l y  i t i s about  An  the unchanging  applies  of a s t i m u l u s .  treatment  t o have  i s one p r o p e r t y  c h a n g e s when  spatiotemporal  present  undertaking.  what  f o r a stimulus  as a dimension.  qualities,  between p a r t s  to c l a r i f y  The  normally  moves i n d e p t h .  lexical  as a  i s an e s p e c i a l l y q u a n t i t a t i v e  i s that  Letter-shape,  higher-order  be  that  F o r example,  to a stimulus  i n order  to conceptualize  object  relations  Size  observation  themselves.  pertains  i s necessary  properties.  property,  proximal  that  respect  c e r t a i n l y r e l a t e d to basic  the p r o p e r t i e s  i s a property  with  the object  simply  physical A l lthree  of the  e x p e r i m e n t s were on t h e r e s p o n s e effect,  i n another  the o b j e c t  effect,  1 04 and  i n yet  latter  of  another these  i t reduced the  object  effect.  three  outcomes t h a t  has  the  The  "Elimination"  Result  It i s  the  most i n t e r p r e t i v e  significance.  Clearly,  i t i s best  to c o n s i d e r  showing an  e l i m i n a t i o n of  irrelevant  shape  confirmed size  and  object's  shape a r e dynamic  continuity object  experiment  continuity  In E x p e r i m e n t object  are  an  Kahneman,  spatiotemporal for production  l a c k of an will  and  This  was  object  indicate  effect  of  the  in  the  that  a sufficient  condition  for  result  processing  stimuli,  and  so  i s not  very  specific  to  the  object  effect  1985).  t o do  shape a r e For  i n t e r a c t i o n between  i s not  nothing  b e c a u s e c o l o r and  no  Result  response-irrelevant  those having  conclude  If they  i n d i c a t e that  work by  that  "No-Interaction"  information  (Treisman,  Pilot  i s not  8 there  effect  inconsistency. number of  response-  effect. The  color  by  7 results  intimately related in  suggested  the  data.  they w i l l  history.  If v a l i d ,  effect  pilot  a necessary c o n d i t i o n  size  spatiotemporal object  visual  be  effect.  duodimension  the  particularly  Experiment  object  t o be  experiment,  G i b b s has  may  size  inconsistency  in a better  T r e i s m a n and  the  the  with  from Experiment  7 alone  i n t e r m s of  t o be  i t might that  of  a  including  r e l a t i o n s between  re-viewing  thought  example,  under any  circumstances,  fruitful or  letter-shape  unexpected  figural  the  implications  process.  separable be  tempting  This  is  features to  response-irrelevant  1 05 properties  are  not  representation the  underlying  a s s e r t i o n might be  present within as  i n the this  the  that,  representation  object  of  that  left can  Of  the  be  of  the  greatest  effect.  object  Object  E f f e c t by  i n t e r p r e t i v e impact shape  This  was  e f f e c t was  inconsistency, discussed, because  but  little  i t i s not  nonsignificant  the  i s the  the  reduction  inconsistency the  e f f e c t per  target  stimulus  form and  to  also  the  se  was  clearest reducing  separately. Any  lack  be  the  task  location. the  a f f e c t e d by the  The value  very  reduced  slight  should  be  that  9, by  and,  8.  color  on  it  Therefore response-  effect.  6 be  explained?  another  the  the  object  the  6,  as  placed  i n s t a n t i a t i o n of the  the  in Experiment  processing stimulus  The of  a  that i s ,  must p e r f o r m , i r r e l e v a n t  duodimension presence an  that  influence  i n Experiment  subject  on  Variation  In E x p e r i m e n t  Experiment  demonstrates  can  demonstrates that  can  significantly  produced  outcome of  object  respect  coded  more  d i s t i n g u i s h a b l y d i f f e r e n t from  irrelevant  with  are  finding  r e s u l t obtained  i n t e r p r e t i v e weight  6 provides  can  be  Irrelevant  inconsistency  reduction  Experiment  How  and  i s warranted:  shape can  is  features  re-viewed  duodimension presence experiment.  letter  information  a t t r i b u t e d to t h e i r s e p a r a b i l i t y .  response-irrelevant object  Alternatively,  unconjoined  these conclusions  i n t e r a c t i o n between c o l o r and  Reduction  effect.  a l t h o u g h a l l the  are  independent dimensions  parsimoniously  in  i n the o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c  object-specific representation,  However, n e i t h e r of  included  irrelevant  experiment  feature  1 06 dimension location  of can  concerning included object  the  i n the  It  influential. r e l e v a n t and  The  question  the  dimensions,  remains  different  i s , why  is  properties  they  i s , that  one.  cannot  because  be  d o e s not  integral apply  have w o u l d  be  Felfoldy,  t o them. whether  1974)  shape of  the  paradigm  to  are  In  fact,  integrality,  is the  the  not  the  and  One  judge simply  from a pre-cued  l o c a t i o n would  made a v a i l a b l e e a r l y and  information  concerning  judgments,  but  are  i s no  that  6 suggests  shape a r e that  the  not  piles  Of  (cf. in  i s present  the  i n or  only  course  of subjects  detection  with  so one  (Treisman, integral  interaction  to  preview  independently  tasks  metric  s o r t i n g of  i n the  involve  shape.  performed a n a l y t i c a l l y  dimensions  variation  i n c e n t i v e t o do  classification  p r e s e n c e and  Experiment  i n the  i n v o l v e shape, i n t h e i r  there  in general,  stimulus  Garner's  information  whether a s t i m u l u s  information  might v o l i t i o n a l l y  of  effects  think  are  of a E u c l i d e a n  irrelevant  would  to  such nominal  stimulus-absent  a f f e c t e d by  stimuli.  according  concept  repetition  shape  are p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y  A useful piece  into stimulus-present  If  property underlying  that  d i m e n s i o n s but  relevant  irrelevant  p r e s e n c e and  of  and,  information  u n l i k e l y that  (1974) f o r m u l a t i o n  absent  irrelevant  independently?  integral  cards  i n an  Obviously  that  p e r t a i n i n g t o the  seems r a t h e r  two  stimulus  object-specific representation  effect.  processed  irrelevant  a l s o be  both  information  not  this  i n Experiment dimension 1985).  features,  then  between them i s  6  1 07 peculiar as  that  to o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c spatiotemporal observed  reports  object  of i n f o r m a t i o n  can r e s u l t i n t h e i r  otherwise  be e x p e c t e d  dimensions of  i n the preview paradigm.  a fascinating result also  presentation  integration  studied  Garner  suggesting  s o u r c e s a s d i m e n s i o n s o f t h e same  t o be p r o c e s s e d  (hue and t a c t i l e  t h e more  information  applied  Apparently properties important stimulus present  object sense  is critical  as separate  re-viewed during  task  effect,  then,  that  this  stimuli  rather,  comprehensive respect others).  sense  to various  what  of t h e t a r g e t i s re-viewed  consistency  with  is crucial  in a  semantic  be l a b e l l e d  respect  i s consistency  but not w i t h  ( i e . the  to a p a r t i c u l a r  ( i e . the s t i m u l i are i d e n t i c a l properties  stimulus  t o the  i n an a n a l y t i c s e n s e  a r e or a r e not i d e n t i c a l  property);  whether t h e  seems t o be c r u c i a l  i s neither  nor c o n s i s t e n c y  What i s  s u c h as shape w i t h t h e  ( i e . t h e s t i m u l i c a n or c a n n o t  "identical"),  e f f e c t i s not  entities.  the p r o c e s s i n g  physical qualities  The c o n s i s t e n c y  object.  i s not only  but a l s o whether  different  seemed t o be t h a t t h e  t o the o b j e c t  informational  i n the presence  shares other target.  t o t h e same d i s t a l  what  or absent,  factor  roughness So a l t h o u g h t h e  the organism along  influential  The two  r o u g h n e s s ) were n o t even  j u d g m e n t s were a f f e c t e d by v a r i a t i o n i n hue.  modalities,  might  independently.  t h e same s e n s o r y m o d a l i t y , and y e t t a c t i l e  sources entered  (1974)  that the  i n t e r a c t i o n when t h e y  information  such  respect  in a with to  various  108 The to  f i n d i n g that  the object  stimulus  effect  comprehensive c o n s i s t e n c y suggests  that  i s a preview of another  examine m e r e l y  the feature  It  to characterize  may be b e s t  stimulus  similarity,  like  as a c o n t r a s t , values.  or l i n e a r  depending  r e s p o n s e - r e l e v a n c e of the d i m e n s i o n , other  dimensions  w e i g h t might context  involved,  be a p p l i e d  of a c o l o r  to response.  (1977) d o e s combination of  the weights on s u c h  applied  f a c t o r s as the  i t sintegrality  and i t s i d e n t i t y  In e s s e n c e ,  dimension  upon w h i c h t h e o b j e c t  effect  something  a list  a l l of which a r e  accessible The of  independently,  although  properties  If  must be a  a r e i n some s e n s e  and t h e O b j e c t - S p e c i f i c  attention  suggestion information results  that  that  conjoins  the object  about  object  not produced  however, t h a t  opposite  conclusion,  integration  features effect  i n t o o b j e c t s , the  depends on  of i n f o r m a t i o n  conjoined  i s consistent  i n d i c a t i n g that  some p r e v i e w that  representation  conjoined.  i n the absence of a t t e n t i o n  Recall,  with  the object  those effect  to f i e l d - 1 .  experiments l e d to the  the o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c could  may be.  Representation  properties  o f t h e KTG p r o j e c t  depends c a n n o t be  some p r o p e r t i e s  object-specific representation  Attention  is  of p r o p e r t i e s ,  i n the  the o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c  representation like  with the  (eg. a n u l l  t o the l e t t e r - s h a p e  task).  to  t o which one  Tversky  Presumably  would v a r y  whether one  i t i s not a p p r o p r i a t e  the extent  i s a preview of another  to each dimension  in determining  dimension p e r t i n e n t  stimulus  a number o f f e a t u r e  is critical  occur  spatiotemporal  extra-attentively.  At  109 this  point,  i t i s interesting  t o note t h a t ,  theoretically,  some o f t h e economy o f a r e t r o a c t i v e i n f o r m a t i o n process past  (namely, t h e a b i l i t y  stimuli  stimulus) that  that  i s lost  despite  same t e n s i o n  that  process  can only  selectively  that  work t o o , b e c a u s e  a t t e n t i o n i s not d i r e c t e d t o f i e l d - 1 . target  presented—should  not i n v o l v e a l l o c a t i o n  that  field-1  the field-1  locations.  whether o r n o t s u b j e c t s  they  may have  intentionally. responding  before  in fact  Responding  in a clearly  even  field-1,  to stimuli  properties there are  location—precued  argued  apply  attended.  c o n s i s t s of c o n j o i n e d  irrelevant  those  the o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c  to the presence of a f e a t u r e  those  on o n l y  to the present  e x i s t s i n the present  the suggestion  representation hints  been  resources  o u t t o be r e l e v a n t  i f that  have a l r e a d y The  turn  t o spend  reference  pre-cued  stimuli are of a t t e n t i o n t o  As a l w a y s , should  i t c a n be  have a t t e n d e d  done so i n v o l u n t a r i l y  to  o r even  However, t h e e m p h a s i s on r a p i d and a c c u r a t e  made s u b j e c t s  vigilant  f o r t h e cue and  them f r o m w a s t i n g a t t e n t i o n e l s e w h e r e . reports  some s u b j e c t s  field-1  display  said  they  (though they  In c a s u a l  discouraged self-  were n e v e r even aware o f t h e  knew a b o u t  i t from t h e  instructions). Better in  evidence  the early-cue  that  field-1  experiments,  was n o t a t t e n d e d ,  i s provided  experiments to the late-cue experiment. experiment explained  generated  unexpected data  (ad h o c ) a s r e s u l t i n g  from  at least  by c o m p a r i n g  such  The l a t e - c u e  t h a t were s u c c e s s f u l l y subjects  selecting a  110 field-1  stimulus.  implemented peculiar and  Once t h e e a r l y - c u e  t o a t t r a c t a t t e n t i o n away f r o m  disappeared  i n d i c a t i v e of a t t e n d i n g  a n d were r e p l a c e d  earlier  preview  research.  salient  e a r l y cue, occurring  attending  The i m p l i c a t i o n 40 ms b e f o r e  not r e s t r i c t e d initially  early  cue:  attend would The  i s that  the t a r g e t  regardless  may l e a v e  1 a n d 2, an argument  box).  safe  to claim  i n v o l u n t a r i l y (Jonides, there,  On t h i s  t h e cue a n d t h e n because,  field-1,  i n t h e d i r e c t i o n o f t h e cue  view,  the bizarre  negative  w i t h an e a r l y cue b e c a u s e ,  or target  type,  a t t e n t i o n would  to a distractor location i n field-2,  i s improbable  1976).  a t t e n t i o n may n o t  t h e c u e , move back t o w a r d  i s headed  of c o n d i t i o n  misdirected  stimuli,  from  w e r e - - s u c h a p e r i p h e r a l cue  once a t t r a c t e d  sometimes i n E x p e r i m e n t  to  subjects  stimuli  were n o t making an e f f o r t t o  they c l e a r l y  e f f e c t would d i s a p p e a r  It  the f i e l d - 1  I t i s probably  attract attention  Attention  object  i s that the  i s s u c c e s s f u l l y a t t r a c t e d by t h e  i f subjects  go t o t h e box t h a t  (ie.  be  to f i e l d - 2 .  attention  Even  likely  problem  and  of the  even w i t h an e a r l y c u e , s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n  to it--which  stay.  prevent  the r e s u l t s of Experiment  be made t h a t ,  that  to field-1,  to field-1.  Despite  is  experiment,  by r e s u l t s t y p i c a l  were even p r e s e n t e d , d i d i n f a c t  was  f i e l d - 1 , the  r e s u l t s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h e l a t e - c u e  presumably  can  manipulation  never  a s i t was  1.  that  the subject  immediately  once a t t e n d e d ,  go back  would  shift  attention  t o the f i e l d - 1  t h e c u e would  require  111 something Hoffman, nothing until  on t h e o r d e r 1973;  Eriksen  & Collins,  forcing subjects  the stimulus  perceived,  that  but t h e y  More c r u c i a l the  of 200-300 ms  may  w e l l do  target  select  any o f t h e f i e l d - 1  to a f i e l d - 1 just to  switch  (Townsend,  would  stimuli.  rapid shifts not have  1973). t h e t i m i n g of  not a l l o w Subjects  of f o c a l  field-1  of the f i e l d - 1  need  support  only  selectively  the c l a i m  50 ms  To  subjects  attended—not  t h e empty moving  that  the f i e l d - 1  attend  catch  would  have  to field-1  the a t t e n t i o n - v o l l e y n o t i o n that  to  t h e cue and  a t t e n t i o n t o t h e e a r l y cue and back  T h i s means t h a t  attention to  i s removed.  stimuli,  t h e empty  attention (Julesz,  time to l e a v e  before  70 ms.  there i s  is fully  a t t e n t i o n to select  i t probably  stimulus  the o f f s e t  so  that, although  allow  moving  1983), and so would  Of c o u r s e ,  a t t r a c t e d a t t e n t i o n there  d i s p l a y s e q u e n c e may  make even t h e most  1969).  (Eriksen &  t o r e m a i n a t t e n t i v e of a l o c a t i o n  i s the f a c t  box,  to process  can  t a r g e t box  stimuli  in  was  themselves  were s e l e c t e d . A reply to t h i s to  selectively  effect it,  attend  select  attend  the  Subjects  (empty) moving box  i s . moving  the target-box  selectively stimulus  to the a c t u a l  t o them.  from w h i c h t h i s once h e l d  p o i n t m i g h t be t h a t  attend  in that  t o an  perform a plethora  field-1  may  target  attend box,  do not need  stimuli  to i n  t o the cue,  use t h e  leave  direction  to i n d i c a t e the l o c a t i o n that  stimulus iconic  location.  subjects  of f i e l d - 1 ,  and  representation  Beside  demanding  of t a s k - i n c o n g r u e n t  of the  that  activity  then  the  in a  subject short  11 2 period  of time,  First,  KTG's f i n d i n g t h a t  the  object  effect  this  reply  on a f a d i n g  4 and 5 o f t h e p r e s e n t  for  that  information about  (Di L o l l o ,  once s t i m u l u s  concerning  This  the p r o p e r t i e s  somewhat c o n j o i n e d  might  explain  without  exceed  How  can the be between  (Treisman,  on t h e s p a t i a l l y resources  to  i n a more  field-1, focused,  how d i f f e r e n t to opposite  of s t i m u l i i n f i e l d - 1  r e s u l t s , and  can be a t l e a s t  any o f t h e s t i m u l i a c t u a l l y  being  by a t t e n t i o n .  Normally the c o n j u n c t i o n selective attention  would o n l y the  durations  as c a p a c i t y  e f f e c t may depend  m a n i p u l a t i o n s of a t t e n t i o n can l e a d  require  with the  the r o l e of a t t e n t i o n  a l l o c a t i o n of s u f f i c i e n t  way.  object  1980).  not on t h e a l l o c a t i o n of a t t e n t i o n  selected  strong  s t i m u l i a r e exposed  S e l e c t i o n Versus Capacity.  The o b j e c t  selective  how  that  Experiments  this contrasts  as s e l e c t i o n and a t t e n t i o n  distributed but  Second,  P e r h a p s t h e key i s t o make a d i s t i n c t i o n  attention 1982).  i f the object  t o use p e r s i s t i n g v i s i b l e  drops o f f sharply  conflict  resolved?  mentioned,  the a b i l i t y  Attention:  icon.  when t h e f i e l d - 1  As a l r e a d y  100-150 ms  apparent  s p e e d had no i n f l u e n c e on  t h e s i s demonstrate  can be p r o d u c e d  1000 ms.  finding  movement  e f f e c t i s n o t what would be e x p e c t e d  were d e p e n d e n t  effects  i s weakened by two f i n d i n g s .  of f e a t u r e (Treisman  information  & Gelade,  d i s t r i b u t e d a t t e n t i o n a l resources  preview d i s p l a y s ?  An  speculative—possibility  1980), so why  be r e q u i r e d i n  interesting—admittedly i s that  the object  does  effect  highly requires  11 3 only  the  aspect  resource  aspect  of a t t e n t i o n b e c a u s e  of a t t e n t i o n i s a l r e a d y  is,  given  the  may  cause  features  unit.  requisite  If t h i s  possible belong  to  provided  processing  t o be  bundled  speculation  form  illusory  t o moving  objects.  1979).  s e n s e d by  special  (Sekuler,  Pantle  and  at  least  together  conjunctions  information (Treisman, kinetic  & Levinson,  1978;  of  shape  R u s s e l l & Green, and  arising  pattern  a p p e a r s t o be  special  on  one  of  respect subjects  video  tapes  The  attention  of stimulus  becomes e a s y  r e l e v a n t l y , motion Neisser  had  focusing  difficulty  videotaped  this  s c e n e s when  difficulty  i n m o t i o n and  and  each  disappeared scene became  episode.  conclusion  There  were s e t  but  object  the  to attention.  superimposed  scenes.were m o t i o n l e s s ,  mentioned,  r e c o g n i t i o n of a  Most  1973),  masking  (1975) s t u d i e s  into motion.  with  two  already  from a s p e c i f i c  (1975) f o u n d t h a t  a dynamic v i s u a l  one.  i s put  is  p h y s i o l o g i c a l mechanisms  As  Johansson's  that  when the  that motion  movement  p a t t e r n as  those  perception  information,  motion demonstrate t h a t  attention  in  be  that  & Regan,  1975).  itself  not  features  status  That  re-viewable  Beverley  biological  Becklen  in a  e x h i b i t s p e c u l i a r r e s i s t a n c e to v i s u a l  depth e f f e c t  once the  motion  i s evidence  direction-specific  to  motion.  i s c o r r e c t , i t should  Indeed, t h e r e  relative  the  resources,  M o t i o n does seem t o have s p e c i a l (Johansson,  by  the s e l e c t i o n  t o be  drawn h e r e  i s much c o n v e r g i n g  i s needed t o c r e a t e  is certainly  evidence  that  a conjoined  not  a  firm  selective  representation  of  11 4 features  (eg. Treisman  research  at  r u l e may  require  perceptual  least  & Gelade,  r a i s e s the  Color  the  conclusion  that  on  the  re-viewing  of c o l o r  color are  consistency  both minimal  statistically). reported  subset  of  select  a subset  in  the  results  first  and  all,  letter  preceding  a disparity  the  priming  object about  by  letter effect  attention:  only by  are  of  by  i s that  been  an to  are  select  t o the  to  1969).  asymmetries  9 as  well.  c o l o r engenders strong  relative  a  a l s o able  (Treisman,  noticeable 8 and  significant  shape has  they  of  information,  able  shape  consistency  effect  is  In  subjects  c o l o r , but  object  effect  i s the  amount of  c o l o r and  the  the  between c o l o r and  statement  effects  and  9 lead  object  non-  effect i t  e n g e n d e r s weak n o n - o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c  t o the  i n the  of  latter  of E x p e r i m e n t s  asymmetry  relative  supported  the  of c o l o r s d e f i n e d  object-specific  priming  not  letter-shape  information,  selective  task,  e x p e r i m e n t s 8 and  of  re-viewing  Symmetry  general  in s i t u a t i o n s involving  sister  effect  however, a c o u p l e  the  supports  the  shapes d e f i n e d  There are,  The  the  (although  i n work on  identification  between  on  this  Letter-Shape  the  to  that  present  motion.  and  together,  However, the  possibility  some q u a l i f i c a t i o n  o r g a n i z a t i o n by  Considered  1980).  same a b s o l u t e  view t h a t  this  non-object-specific  letter.  supported  i t supports.  by  This  view  c o l o r and  size  some of KTG's e x p e r i m e n t s s u g g e s t  Implicit  asymmetry  facilitation  i s s e n s i b l e because letter  are,  in milliseconds. that  is  there  is a  after  However, fixed  11 5 amount o f f a c i l i t a t i o n specific  t o be s h a r e d between  and t h e n o n s p e c i f i c  asymmetry  might  i n the p r o p o r t i o n  specific:  The  the This  facilitation  of f a c i l i t a t i o n  experiment  in question  may  (1983).  susceptible that  organization  asymmetry  shape and c o l o r processing  than  The involves  their  dimensions  asymmetry respective  into  has  a main e f f e c t on l e t t e r  consistency  naming.  difference  unitization:  The of t h e  objects. letter-shape  effects:  color  response.  However,  has a main e f f e c t on c o l o r  (Anne T r e i s m a n  first  result).  i s , r e p e t i t i o n s of l e t t e r - s h a p e  effect.  consistency consistency although  response,  d o e s n o t have a main e f f e c t on l e t t e r  That  this  i n t h e way  r e s p o n s e , and l e t t e r  recognized  Given  that  r e l a t i o n s to the object  a main e f f e c t on c o l o r  and  i s more  i t i s possible  between c o l o r and  support o b j e c t  consistency  asymmetry  be s i m p l y more i n d e p e n d e n t  has  letter  i s color  relate to perceptual  of t h e f i e l d  second  the  i n v o l v e m a n i p u l a t i o n s of t h e  a fundamental  of c o l o r may  organization  Both  cost  of t h e f i e l d ,  represents  in  by Kahneman, T r e i s m a n  shape naming  both experimental s e t t i n g s  object  is  that  be r e l a t e d t o a n o t h e r  I t seems t h a t  to f i l t e r i n g  i s object-  and t h e f a c i l i t a t i o n  the p o s s i b i l i t y  between c o l o r and shape r e p o r t e d Burkell  that  i s predominantly o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c .  characterization reveals  asymmetry  as a  i n the c o l o r experiment  non-object-specific,  letter-shape  object-  and so t h e o b s e r v e d  a l t e r n a t i v e l y be c h a r a c t e r i z e d  difference  predominantly  mechanisms,  the  color  response  t h e s i g n i f i c a n c e of  this  generate  116 object-specific repetitions  of c o l o r r e s p o n s e s ,  information  of l e t t e r  responses.  interaction  goes  This  should color  integrality,  affect  i n one d i r e c t i o n  Garner  o f main e f f e c t s  affect are  letter  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , form  (1974) r a n k i n g processing  consistency,  color consistency.  interesting  color  is less  because  These  constraining  of o b j e c t s  the  of the l e t t e r  strength  Color  consistency  that,  relative  t o form,  e f f e c t ) b u t i s more  effect).  i t i s s u r p r i s i n g t h a t KTG f o u n d  consistency  could  a letter  does Given  proposition  not support  does n o t  ( i e . i t s consistency  ( i e . i t s consistency object  consistency  f i n d i n g s taken a l l together  imply  object  of c o l o r  i s b o r n e o u t when i t  by o b j e c t s  does n o t g e n e r a t e a l e t t e r  form.  of the potency  but l e t t e r  they  constrained  not a f f e c t  i n E x p e r i m e n t s 8 and 9.  comes t o i n f l u e n c i n g o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c i t y . affects  color  i s not c o n s i s t e n t with the  obtained  form on e a c h o t h e r ' s  that  should  c o l o r more t h a n c o l o r does  However, G a r n e r ' s  between c o l o r  (1974) s p e c u l a t e s  When i t comes t o i n f l u e n c i n g s i m p l e seems t o a f f e c t  that the  In a d i s c u s s i o n of  form d i s c r i m i n a t i o n b u t form  d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , which  pattern  and  suggests  l e t t e r - s h a p e but n o t i n t h e o t h e r .  asymmetric  but  o f c o l o r do n o t g e n e r a t e o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c  facilitation  and  facilitation  that  object  determine this color  effect  i n the  degenerate Ternus d i s p l a y s . Rival Certain to  rival  A c c o u n t s of the O b j e c t  accounts of the o b j e c t  KTG's  (in progress),  which  effect  Effect c a n be p u t  involves  forward  spatiotemporal  11 7 integration this  of s t i m u l u s  thesis provide The The  object  that  stimuli.  Response-Integration  appear w i t h i n of r e s p o n s e  Consistent  inconsistent  consistent.  that  conditions  as s t i m u l i ,  a moving  effect.  associated  no  object  by  the v i s u a l search  Further  and preview  they a r e response-  were t h e same  was i n lower c a s e ,  even  though t h e r e  but one  there  was  was no  stimulus. that  a case of response  facilitation is  6 of the p r e s e n t  the object  series.  I f the  i n t e g r a t i o n i n the preview paradigm  s o l e l y between that  have been  letter  f o r the contention  by E x p e r i m e n t  a dimension  against  t h e same r e s p o n s e ,  w i t h any f i e l d - 1  support  spatiotemporal  with  experiment  i s not p u r e l y  consistent  those  (b) An o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c e f f e c t was y i e l d e d  response associated  occurring  i t c a u s e s an  with  the target  and preview  i n upper c a s e and t h e o t h e r  afforded  rather,  about t h e  Two o f KTG's f i n d i n g s a r e good e v i d e n c e  was  preview  that  have f a s t e r RTs t h a n  but because  were t h e r e f o r e  should  asserts  object;  not because  (a) When t h e t a r g e t  should  accounts.  Account  account  and  on  rival  tendencies associated  conditions  consistent  effect  these  does n o t c a u s e an i n t e g r a t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n  integration  this.  Some o f t h e f i n d i n g s of  evidence against  response-integration  stimuli  are  information.  response tendencies,  i s i r r e l e v a n t with  inconsequential.  conditions  of Experiment  have been a s s o c i a t e d regardless  of t h e i r  respect  In t h e two  were  then v a r i a t i o n to response present-  6 the response  with both the t a r g e t  "present"  and the  s h a p e s , w h i c h h a d no r e s p o n s e  1 18 relevance  whatsoever.  integration propose  account  that  The  given  associated  with  this  imply  on  information  that  the  to another  KTG's a c c o u n t .  to  with  are  to  that  Experiment explanation that  at  the  motion  between them. only  Just  phenomenal,  perceptual that  they are  of  KTG  the  contend  the  interaction motion line  or  because  motion  (eg.  the  by  occurring  the  that  together  two  of  change  t o do  a  because, A  stimuli  in  distance distance have  is  no  1962,  found  i n phenomenal  warp v i s u a l  psychologically.  The  the " o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c "  between s t i m u l i l i n k e d by  nothing  as  stimulus.  Ebenholtz, on  to  observation  i t can  effectively  apparent motion guided  f i g u r e s has  response.  object  a single  contraction  i s dependent  i s that  the  objective  Rock and  stimuli closer  proposition  those  effect rival  thoroughly  between  the  of  integrated  f o u n d e d on  follow  A p p a r e n t m o t i o n may  space, b r i n g i n g of  be  distance  i t does not  stroboscopic  as  on  i n t e r e s t with  that  s t i m u l i being  i s l e s s than  consequences  location).  crux  can  level  object  made more l i k e  average apparent  stroboscopic  differ  identical--and  a l s o of  These s t i m u l i i n t e r a c t so  the  two  6 are  unit.  that  fully  i s to  Account  single  explanation  6,  o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c i n t e g r a t i o n depends  r e s u l t of  contrasting  as  completely  i s the  some s e n s e s ,  response-  s t i m u l i that  effect  in  the  Experiment  integrated  Apparent-Distance  Recall  salvage  r e s u l t s of  not  in addition  r e s u l t s of  respect  are  s t i m u l i that  The The  the  way  responses a s s o c i a t e d  some p h y s i c a l p r o p e r t y  would  only  with  by  the  real  pure  apparent  motion  unitization:  The  of  1 19 enhanced being  i n t e r a c t i o n i s the  brought  Nelson,  perceptually  notion  is consistent  (1977) " r e l a t i v i s t i c " w i t h Ramachandran's c a u s e s misjudgment motion.  Block's of  closer  of q u i t e together  distinct (nb.  It  w i t h Shaw and  conception  of  stimulus very  (1973) a s s e r t i o n the  that  l o c a t i o n i n the  consistent  that  the  genesis  of  perceptual apparent  motion.  inconsistent  experiment  showing no  difference  i n the  Because  and  the  effect. of  value  that  apparent  r e s u l t s would be  response-irrelevant  the  and  1974).  v i e w , the  detection  shape of  a nearby  apparent-distance contradicted experiment.  Surely, of  by  one but  account the  and  on  no  object  the  the  the  are  of  presence and  chroma--a p a i r when  (Garner  &  apparent-distance not  object;  object  the  between  the  effect  a nonintegral  should  distinct  r e s u l t s of  of  separate objects  t h e n , on  of  effect  account  to p r e d i c t  like  to  KTG's  preview  dimension p a i r value  chroma p e r t a i n  and  As  with  object  target  inconsistency  integrality--behaves  motion  condition.  distance  obliged  shape  Even t h e  Felfoldy,  the  far-distance  i t maintains  separate objects,  the  a  and  representation  i t is also  paragon  &  d i r e c t i o n of  with Attneave  discussed,  a near-distance  space,  apparent  previously  object  Hoffman  Pittenger's  of p e r c e p t u a l  (1981) o b s e r v a t i o n  i s not  space precedes  preview  objects  1981).  This  the  result  be  affected  and  so  effect  is  duodimension  the  presence  by  1 20 The There  formulation.  once t h e t a r g e t  removed of  According  field-1  stimulus  the t a r g e t ' s apparent Another  processing  a l t e r n a t i v e t o the  t o the r e - v i e w i n g  ( i n the Ternus experiment  and the apparent  target.  Account  seems t o be a n o n r e t r o a c t i v e  re-viewing  presented  Spatial-Frequency  motion  movement  explanation  of high  f o r example) i s  i s created,  t h a t has t u r n e d  idea,  the already-  out t o be t h e o r i g i n  i s i n t e g r a t e d with the  b a s e d on t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l  and low s p a t i a l  frequencies  might  be  entertained. The spatial high  visual  system  frequency  channels  (Breitmeyer processed motion  relative  than h i g h  o f low s p a t i a l  spatial  spatial  frequencies are  frequencies.  frequency  Thus,  the p r o c e s s i n g  field-1  letter i s that  facilitation  before  (Attneave,  this  because  time of i t s i n i t i a l  of l e t t e r  field-1  letter letter  i t receives favored processing,  re-processing.  letter  be slow  in the p h y s i c a l i s linked to a  i s fully could  1974)  concerning  shape may  1967), t h e t a r g e t that  The a p p a r e n t  t h e p r o c e s s i n g of  the o b j e c t i v e timing  ( c f . Kahneman,  by  response l a t e n c i e s  t o t h e more d e t a i l e d i n f o r m a t i o n  display  special  Low  to  1971), and d i f f e r e n t  be p r o c e s s e d  have d i f f e r e n t  1976).  enough t h a t , d e s p i t e  result  may  i n the Ternus d i s p l a y r e f l e c t s  information  shape.  frequencies  that  & Ganz,  faster  a scene a c c o r d i n g  ( P o l l e n , Lee & T a y l o r ,  and low s p a t i a l  different  seems t o a n a l y z e  processed.  produce  greater  treatment  not because  The  at the  i t receives  121 One  problem with  account  f o r the  duration field-1  them  the  target-yoked had  fully  1000 and  the  spatial-frequency  object  2--is  frequency.  The  that  so  any  the  large  i s not  of  of  the  reported  r e f e r r i n g to  (b)  The  simply  object  These g e n e r a l spatiotemporal  an  stimulus  in  bestowed a f t e r In  or  against  absence  ones u s e d  relatively would  the  addition,  evidence  the  account  process  low  of  a  in spatial  therefore  judgment  severely  with  reduce  or  effect.  of  the  S t u d y as  in t h i s  two the  object  be  target strict  support  e f f e c t can  produced and  as  operate  of  i n the  information  an  stimuli:  repetition.  preview as  on  without  preview  stimulus  new  conclusions,  KTG's c o n t e n t i o n  integration witnessed  c o n c e r n s p h y s i c a l or p e r c e p t u a l  well  e f f e c t to a  physical properties  between t h e  conclusions  t h e s i s , as  fundamental  e f f e c t can  e f f e c t of  a Whole  KTG's o b j e c t  s e t t i n g , support  complete c o n g r u i t y It  as  With  to  f o r the  p r e v i e w p a r a d i g m would  object  KTG).  time  presence  information  mechanism u n d e r l y i n g  object.  5;  se c o u n t s as  i t i s as  a generalization  information  4 and  retroactively.  spatial-frequency  i n the  experimental (a) The  long-  advantage  The  itself  experiments  providing  experiments with  would be  account.  Implication The  there  to  implementing a presence/absence  stimuli  eradicate  ms,  e f f e c t per  stimulus—when  Experiment  such  (Experiments  been p r e s e n t e d — i e .  presence  predict  i n the  is its inability  l o c a t i o n w o u l d have t o be  the  target  framework  effect  fields  s t i m u l i of  of  target  object  initial  all  this  that  the  paradigm  opposed  to  1 22 abstract  or conceptual  Whether on  information.  one p r e f e r s t o model  an o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c r e p r e s e n t a t i o n  process—formally anyway--this  decision  they  are probably  Indeed, given  experiments,  course,  levels  i t could  i s present  spatiotemporal useful  perceptual lexical-  as though the  be a s s e r t e d  perceptual  that  information.  information  i n t e g r a t i o n ; however, t h i s t o make b e c a u s e  representation/process  for  the i n t e g r a t i o n .  consider  different  at a l l  but not a l l of i t i s s u b j e c t t o  distinction  otherwise,  must i n c l u d e  includes only  the  do  as based  o r on an o b j e c t - s p e c i f i c  KTG's l e t t e r - c a s e and  i t looks  representation/process  effect  not e s s e n t i a l l y  representation/process  information.  Of  the object  then,  the purpose of  in the f i r s t  Until  there  place  information  very  invoking  was t o a c c o u n t  i s some s p e c i f i c  i t would p r o b a b l y  nonintegratable  would n o t be a  be b e t t e r  reason  simply  t o be a b s e n t  to  to  from t h e  representation/process. The  basic  finding  spatiotemporal can  apply  contention  integration giving rise  that  KTG's l e t t e r  lexical  encourages the thought cognitive  effect,  integrity  of o b j e c t s .  levels  thesis,  that the to the object  effect  t o p h y s i c a l p r o p e r t i e s , makes more p l a u s i b l e t h e  nonperceptual  between  of t h i s  effect  information. that  i s closely  such  Further,  i t also  i n t e g r a t i o n , manifested  as a  r e l a t e d to the perceptual  As a r g u e d  integration operations is difficult  i s n o t b a s e d on  to discern.  earlier,  the causal  at different  relation  informational  Nevertheless,  the conclusion  1 23 that  the  effect that  spatiotemporal  i s perceptual  this  integration  integration  in nature plays a  phenomenal c o h e r e n c e of  underlying  emphasizes role  objects  the  the  possibility  in e s t a b l i s h i n g  i n the  visual  object  the  world.  1 24 References  A l l p o r t , D. A., T i p p e r , S. P. & C h m i e l , N. R. J . ( i n p r e s s ) . P e r c e p t u a l i n t e g r a t i o n and p o s t - c a t e g o r i c a l f i l t e r i n g . In A t t e n t i o n and P e r f o r m a n c e X I . A n d e r s o n , N. H. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . F o u n d a t i o n s of I n f o r m a t i o n I n t e g r a t i o n . New Y o r k : A c a d e m i c P r e s s . A n s t i s , S. M. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . A p p a r e n t movement. In R. H e l d , H. W. L e i b o w i t z & H. Teuber ( E d s . ) , Handbook of S e n s o r y P h y s i o l o g y , V o l . 8: P e r c e p t i o n . New Y o r k : S p r i n g e r - V e r l a g . A n s t i s , S. M. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . The p e r c e p t i o n of a p p a r e n t movement. P h i l o s o p h i c a l T r a n s a c t i o n s o f t h e R o y a l S o c i e t y o f London, B290, 153-168. A t t n e a v e , F. ( 1 9 7 4 ) . A p p a r e n t movement and t h e what-where c o n n e c t i o n . P s y c h o l o g i a , 17, 108-120. A t t n e a v e , F. & B l o c k , G. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . A p p a r e n t movement i n t r i d i m e n s i o n a l s p a c e . P e r c e p t i o n & P s y c h o p h y s i c s , 13, 301307. A v e r b a c h , E . & C o r i e l l , A. S. ( 1 9 6 1 ) . S h o r t - t e r m memory i n v i s i o n . The B e l l S y s t e m s T e c h n i c a l J o u r n a l , 40, 309-328. Banks, W. P. & P r i n z m e t a l , W. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . C o n f i g u r a t i o n a l in v i s u a l information p r o c e s s i n g . Perception & P s y c h o p h y s i c s , 19, 361-367.  effects  B e c k e r , C. A. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . S e m a n t i c c o n t e x t e f f e c t s i n v i s u a l word r e c o g n i t i o n : An a n a l y s i s of s e m a n t i c s t r a t e g i e s . Memory & C o g n i t i o n , 8, 493-512. B e l l e r , H. K. ( 1 9 7 1 ) . P r i m i n g : E f f e c t s of a d v a n c e i n f o r m a t i o n on m a t c h i n g . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 87, 176— 182. Berbaum, K., L e n e l , J . C. & Rosenbaum, M. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . D i m e n s i o n s of f i g u r a l i d e n t i t y and a p p a r e n t m o t i o n . J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y : Human P e r c e p t i o n and P e r f o r m a n c e , 7, 1312-1317. B e v e r l e y , R. I . & Regan, D. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . E v i d e n c e f o r t h e e x i s t e n c e o f n e u r a l mechanisms s e l e c t i v e l y s e n s i t i v e t o t h e d i r e c t i o n of movement i n s p a c e . J o u r n a l of P h y s i o l o g y , 235, 17-29. B i e d e r m a n , I . & C h e c k o s k y , S. F. ( 1 9 7 0 ) . P r o c e s s i n g r e d u n d a n t i n f o r m a t i o n . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 83, 486490.  1 25 Bouma, H. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . V i s u a l s e a r c h and r e a d i n g : Eye movements and f u n c t i o n a l v i s u a l f i e l d : A t u t o r i a l r e v i e w . In J . R e q u i n ( E d . ) , A t t e n t i o n and P e r f o r m a n c e V I I . H i l l s d a l e , NJ: E r l b a u m . B r a d d i c k , 0. ( 1 9 7 4 ) . A s h o r t - r a n g e p r o c e s s m o t i o n . V i s i o n R e s e a r c h , 14, 519-527.  i n apparent  B r e i t m e y e r , B. G. & Ganz, L . ( 1 9 7 6 ) . I m p l i c a t i o n s o f s u s t a i n e d and t r a n s i e n t c h a n n e l s f o r t h e o r i e s o f v i s u a l p a t t e r n m a s k i n g , s a c c a d i c s u p p r e s s i o n and i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 83, 1-36. B r o a d b e n t , D. E . ( 1 9 5 8 ) . P e r c e p t i o n L o n d o n : Permagon.  and C o m m u n i c a t i o n .  C l a r k , S. E . (1969)* R e t r i e v a l o f c o l o r i n f o r m a t i o n from p e r c e p t u a l memory. J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 82, 263-266. C o l l i n s , A. M. & L o f t u s , E . F. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . A s p r e a d i n g - a c t i v a t i o n t h e o r y o f s e m a n t i c p r o c e s s i n g . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 82, 407-428. C o l t h e a r t , M. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . I c o n i c memory and v i s i b l e P e r c e p t i o n & P s y c h o p h y s i c s , 27, 183-228.  persistence.  C o l t h e a r t , M. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . I c o n i c memory. P h i l o s o p h i c a l T r a n s a c t i o n s o f t h e R o y a l S o c i e t y of London, B302, 283294. De G r o o t , A. M. B., Thomassen, A. J . W. M., & Hudson, P. T. W. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . A s s o c i a t i v e f a c i l i t a t i o n of word r e c o g n i t i o n a s measured from a n e u t r a l p r i m e . Memory & C o g n i t i o n , 10, 358-370. Denkiw, P. & M i c h a e l s , i c o n i c memory. A c t a Di  C. F. ( 1 9 7 6 ) . M o t i o n i n f o r m a t i o n i n P s y c h o l o q i c a , 40, 257-264.  L o l l o , V. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . T e m p o r a l i n t e g r a t i o n i n v i s u a l memory. J o u r n a l of Experimental Psychology: General, 109, 75-97.  Duncan, J . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . The l o c u s o f i n t e r f e r e n c e i n t h e p e r c e p t i o n of s i m u l t a n e o u s s t i m u l i . P s y c h o l o g i c a l 87, 272-300.  Review,  Duncan, J . (1984, J u l y ) . A t t e n t i o n and o b j e c t p e r c e p t i o n . I n the U.B.C. D e p a r t m e n t o f P s y c h o l o g y C o l l o q u i u m S e r i e s . E i c h e l m a n , W. H. ( 1 9 7 0 ) . S t i m u l u s and r e s p o n s e r e p e t i t i o n e f f e c t s f o r naming l e t t e r s a t two r e s p o n s e - s t i m u l u s i n t e r v a l s . P e r c e p t i o n & P s y c h o p h y s i c s , 1_, 94-96.  1 26 E p s t e i n , W. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . _M, 75-83.  Percept-percept couplings. Percept ion,  E r i k s e n , C. W. & C o l l i n s , J . F. ( 1 9 6 8 ) . S e n s o r y t r a c e s v e r s u s the p s y c h o l o g i c a l moment i n t h e t e m p o r a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of form. J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 77, 376-382. E r i k s e n , C. W. & C o l l i n s , J . F. ( 1 9 6 9 ) . T e m p o r a l c o u r s e of s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n . J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l Psychology, 80_, 254-261. E r i k s e n , C. W. & H o f f m a n , J . E . ( 1 9 7 3 ) . The e x t e n t of p r o c e s s i n g of noise elements d u r i n g s e l e c t i v e encoding from v i s u a l d i s p l a y s . P e r c e p t i o n & P s y c h o p h y s i c s , 14, 1551 60. E r i k s e n , C. W. & S c h u l t z , D. W. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . T e m p o r a l f a c t o r s i n v i s u a l i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g : A t u t o r i a l r e v i e w . In J . R e q u i n ( E d . ) , A t t e n t i o n and P e r f o r m a n c e V I I . H i l l s d a l e , NJ: E r l b a u m . F e l f o l d y , G. L. ( 1 9 7 4 ) . R e p e t i t i o n e f f e c t s i n c h o i c e time t o m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l s t i m u l i . P e r c e p t i o n & P s y c h o p h y s i c s , 15, 453-459.  reaction  F e u s t e l , T. C , S h i f f r i n , R. M. & S a l a s o o , A. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . E p i s o d i c and l e x i c a l c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o t h e r e p e t i t i o n e f f e c t i n word i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y : G e n e r a l , 112, 309-346. F i s c h h o f f , B. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . F o r t h o s e condemned t o s t u d y t h e p a s t : H e u r i s t i c s and b i a s e s i n h i n d s i g h t . In D. Kahneman, P. S l o v i c & A. T v e r s k y ( E d s . ) , Judgment Under U n c e r t a i n t y : H e u r i s t i c s and B i a s e s . New Y o r k : C a m b r i d g e . F i s c h l e r , I . & Goodman, G. 0. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . L a t e n c y of a c t i v a t i o n i n memory. J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l Human P e r c e p t i o n and P e r f o r m a n c e , £ , 455-470.  associative Psychology:  F o w l e r , C. A., W o l f o r d , G., S l a d e , R. & T a s s i n a r y , L. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . L e x i c a l a c c e s s w i t h and w i t h o u t a w a r e n e s s . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y : G e n e r a l , 110, 341-362. G a r n e r , W. R. ( 1 9 7 4 ) . The P r o c e s s i n g of I n f o r m a t i o n and S t r u c t u r e . Potomac, M a r y l a n d : E r l b a u m . G a r n e r , W. R. &• F e l f o l d y , G. L . ( 1 9 7 0 ) . I n t e g r a l i t y o f s t i m u l u s d i m e n s i o n s i n v a r i o u s t y p e s of i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g . C o g n i t i v e P s y c h o l o g y , J _ , 225-241. Gibson, J . J . (1959). P e r c e p t i o n as a f u n c t i o n of s t i m u l a t i o n . In S. Koch ( E d . ) , P s y c h o l o g y : A S t u d y S c i e n c e , 1, 456-501.  of a  1 27  G r e g o r y , R. L . ( 1 9 8 0 ) . P e r c e p t i o n s a s h y p o t h e s e s . P h i l o s o p h i c a l T r a n s c a t i o n s of t h e Royal S o c i e t y B290, 1 8 1 - 1 9 7 .  of London,  H a b e r , R. N. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . The i m p e n d i n g d e m i s e of t h e i c o n : A c r i t i q u e of the concept of i c o n i c s t o r a g e i n v i s u a l i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g . ' T h e B e h a v i o r a l and B r a i n S c i e n c e s , 6, 1-54. H e n i k , A., F r i e d i c h , F. J . & K e l l o g g , W. A. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . The d e p e n d e n c e o f s e m a n t i c r e l a t e d n e s s e f f e c t s upon p r i m e p r o c e s s i n g . Memory & C o g n i t i o n , 11, 366-373. Hoffman, J . E . & N e l s o n , B. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . S p a t i a l s e l e c t i v i t y i n v i s u a l s e a r c h . P e r c e p t i o n & P s y c h o p h y s i c s , 30, 283-290. J a c o b y , L. L . & B r o o k s , L. R. ( i n p r e s s ) . N o n a n a l y t i c c o g n i t i o n : Memory, p e r c e p t i o n , and c o n c e p t l e a r n i n g . In G. H. Bower ( E d . ) , The P s y c h o l o g y o f L e a r n i n g and M o t i v a t i o n : A d v a n c e s i n R e s e a r c h and T h e o r y . J o h a n s s o n , G. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . V i s u a l A m e r i c a n , 232, 76-88.  motion  perception.  Scientific  J o h a n s s o n , G. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . V i s u a l e v e n t p e r c e p t i o n . I n R. H e l d , H. W. L e i b o w i t z & H. T e u b e r ( E d s . ) , Handbook of S e n s o r y P h y s i o l o g y , V o l . 8: P e r c e p t i o n . New Y o r k : S p r i n g e r - V e r l a g . J o h a n s s o n , G. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . Memory f u n c t i o n s i n v i s u a l e v e n t p e r c e p t i o n . In L. N i l s s o n ( E d . ) , P e r s p e c t i v e s on Memory Research. H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum. J o h a n s s o n , G. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . O p t i c f l o w , i c o n s , and memory. The B e h a v i o r a l and B r a i n S c i e n c e s , 6_, 23-24. J o h a n s s o n , G., von H o f s t e n , C. & J a n s s o n , G. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . E v e n t p e r c e p t i o n . A n n u a l Review o f P s y c h o l o g y , 31, 27-63. J o n i d e s , J . (1976). V o l u n t a r y v e r s u s r e f l e x i v e c o n t r o l of the mind's e y e ' s movement. Paper p r e s e n t e d a t t h e m e e t i n g of the P s y c h o n o m i c S o c i e t y . J u l e s z , B. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . T e x t o n s , r a p i d f o c a l a t t e n t i o n s h i f t s , and i c o n i c memory. The B e h a v i o r a l and B r a i n S c i e n c e s , 6, 2527. Kahneman, D. ( 1 9 6 7 ) . An o n s e t - o n s e t law f o r one c a s e o f a p p a r e n t m o t i o n and m e t a c o n t r a s t . P e r c e p t i o n & P s y c h o p h y s i c s , 2, 577-584. Kahneman, D. ( 1 9 6 8 ) . Method, f i n d i n g s , and t h e o r y i n s t u d i e s of v i s u a l m a s k i n g . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 70, 404-425.  1 28 Kahneman, D. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . A t t e n t i o n NJ: P r e n t i c e - H a l l .  and E f f o r t .  Englewood  Cliffs,  Kahneman, D. & C h a j c z y k , D. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . T e s t s o f t h e a u t o m a t i c i t y of r e a d i n g : D i l u t i o n o f S t r o o p e f f e c t s by c o l o r - i r r e l e v a n t s t i m u l i . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y : Human P e r c e p t i o n and P e r f o r m a n c e , 9, 497-509. Kahneman, D. & H e n i k , A. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . E f f e c t s o f v i s u a l g r o u p i n g on immediate r e c a l l and s e l e c t i v e a t t e n t i o n . In S. D o r n i c ( E d . ) , A t t e n t i o n and P e r f o r m a n c e V I . H i l l s d a l e , N J : Erlbaum. Kahneman, D. & H e n i k , A. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . P e r c e p t u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n and a t t e n t i o n . I n M. Kubovy & J . Pomerantz ( E d s . ) , P e r c e p t u a l O r q a n i z a t i o n . H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum. Kahneman, D. & M i l l e r , D. T. ( i n p r e s s ) . Norm t h e o r y : Comparing r e a l i t y t o i t s a l t e r n a t i v e s . Kahneman, D. & T r e i s m a n , A. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . C h a n g i n g v i e w s of a t t e n t i o n and a u t o m a t i c i t y . In R. P a r a s u r a m a n , R. D a v i e s & J . B e a t t y ( E d s . ) , V a r i e t i e s o f A t t e n t i o n . New Y o r k : Academic P r e s s . Kahneman, D. T r e i s m a n , A. & B u r k e l l , J . ( 1 9 8 3 ) . The c o s t o f v i s u a l f i l t e r i n g . J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y : Human P e r c e p t i o n and P e r f o r m a n c e , 9, 510-522. Kahneman, D., T r e i s m a n ,  A. & G i b b s ,  B. J . ( i n p r o g r e s s ) .  Kahneman, D. & Wolman, R. E . ( 1 9 7 0 ) . S t r o b o s c o p i c m o t i o n : E f f e c t s o f d u r a t i o n and i n t e r v a l . P e r c e p t i o n & P s y c h o p h y s i c s , 8, 161-164. K i g e r , J . I . & G l a s s , A. L. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . The f a c i l i t a t i o n o f l e x i c a l d e c i s i o n by a p r i m e o c c u r r i n g a f t e r t h e t a r g e t . Memory & C o g n i t i o n , 11, 356-365. K o f f k a , K. ( 1 9 3 5 ) . P r i n c i p l e s o f G e s t a l t York: H a r c o u r t , Brace & World. K o h l e r , W. ( 1 9 6 9 ) . The Task NJ: P r i n c e t o n U. P r e s s .  of G e s t a l t  Psychology.  Psychology.  New  Princeton,  K o l e r s , P. A. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . P e r c e p t i o n and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . Review o f P s y c h o l o g y , 34, 129-166.  Annual  K o r i a t , A. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . S e m a n t i c f a c i l i t a t i o n i n l e x i c a l d e c i s i o n a s a f u n c t i o n o f p r i m e - t a r g e t a s s o c i a t i o n . Memory & C o g n i t i o n , 9, 587-598.  129 L a s h l e y , K. S. ( 1 9 4 2 ) . The p r o b l e m o f c e r e b r a l i n v i s i o n . B i o l o g i c a l S y m p o s i a , 1_, 301-322.  organization  Logan, G. D. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . A t t e n t i o n and a u t o m a t i c i t y i n S t r o o p and p r i m i n g t a s k s : T h e o r y and d a t a . C o g n i t i v e P s y c h o l o g y , 12, 523-553. M a r c e l , A. J . ( 1 9 8 3 a ) . C o n s c i o u s a n d u n c o n s c i o u s p e r c e p t i o n : E x p e r i m e n t s on v i s u a l m a s k i n g a n d word r e c o g n i t i o n . C o g n i t i v e P s y c h o l o g y , 15, 197-237. M a r c e l , A. J . ( 1 9 8 3 b ) . C o n s c i o u s a n d u n c o n s c i o u s p e r c e p t i o n : An a p p r o a c h t o t h e r e l a t i o n s between phenomenal e x p e r i e n c e and p e r c e p t u a l p r o c e s s e s . C o g n i t i v e P s y c h o l o g y , 15, 238300. M c C l e l l a n d , J . L. & R u m e l h a r t , D. E . ( 1 9 8 1 ) . An i n t e r a c t i v e a c t i v a t i o n model o f c o n t e x t e f f e c t s i n l e t t e r p e r c e p t i o n : P a r t 1. An a c c o u n t o f b a s i c f i n d i n g s . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 88, 375-407. McRoon, G. & R a t c l i f f , R. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . P r i m i n g i n e p i s o d i c and s e m a n t i c memory. J o u r n a l o f V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l B e h a v i o r , 18, 463-480. Meyer, D. E . & S c h v a n e v e l d t , R. W. ( 1 9 7 1 ) . F a c i l i t a t i o n i n r e c o g n i z i n g p a i r s of word: E v i d e n c e of a d e p e n d e n c e between r e t r i e v a l o p e r a t i o n s . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 90, 227-234. M i c h o t t e , A. ( 1 9 6 3 ) . The P e r c e p t i o n o f C a u s a l i t y . Methuen.  London:  M o r t o n , J . ( 1 9 6 9 ) . I n t e r a c t i o n o f i n f o r m a t i o n i n word r e c o g n i t i o n . P s y c h o l o g i c a l R e v i e w , 76, 165-178. N e e l y , J . H. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . S e m a n t i c p r i m i n g and r e t r i e v a l from l e x i c a l memory: R o l e s o f i n h i b i t i o n l e s s s p r e a d i n g a c t i v a t i o n and l i m i t e d - c a p a c i t y a t t e n t i o n . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y : G e n e r a l , 106, 226-254. N e i s s e r , U. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . The r i s e and f a l l r e g i s t e r . The B e h a v i o r a l and B r a i n  of the sensory S c i e n c e s , 6, 34.  N e i s s e r , U. & B e c k l e n , R. ( 1 9 7 5 ) . S e l e c t i v e l o o k i n g : Attending to v i s u a l l y s p e c i f i e d events. Cognitive P s y c h o l o g y , 7, 480-494. P a l m e r , S. E . ( 1 9 7 7 ) . H i e r a r c h i c a l s t r u c t u r e i n p e r c e p t u a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n . C o g n i t i v e P s y c h o l o g y , 9, 441-474.  1 30 P e t e r s i k , J . T. & P a n t l e , A. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . F a c t o r s c o n t r o l l i n g the c o m p e t i n g s e n s a t i o n s p r o d u c e d by a b i s t a b l e s t r o b o s c o p i c m o t i o n d i s p l a y . V i s i o n R e s e a r c h , 19, 143-154. P o l l e n , D. A., L e e , J . R. & T a y l o r , J . H. ( 1 9 7 1 ) . How t h e s t r i a t e c o r t e x b e g i n the r e c o n s t r u c t i o n of the w o r l d ? S c i e n c e , 173, 74-77.  does visual  P o m e r a n t z , J . R. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . P e r c e p t u a l o r g a n i z a t i o n i n i n f o r m a t i o n p r o c e s s i n g . In M. Kubovy & J . R. Pomerantz ( E d s . ) , P e r c e p t u a l O r g a n i z a t i o n . H i l l s d a l e , NJ: E r l b a u m . P o s n e r , M. I . ( 1 9 7 8 ) . C h r o n o m e t r i c H i l l s d a l e , NJ: E r l b a u m .  Explorations  of  Mind.  P o s n e r , M. I . & S n y d e r , C. R. R. ( 1 9 7 5 a ) . F a c i l i t a t i o n and i n h i b i t i o n i n t h e p r o c e s s i n g of s i g n a l s . In P. M. A. R a b b i t t & S. D o r n i c ( E d s . ) , A t t e n t i o n and P e r f o r m a n c e V. New Y o r k : A c a d e m i c P r e s s . P o s n e r , M. I . & S n y d e r , C. R. R. ( 1 9 7 5 b ) . A t t e n t i o n and c o g n i t i v e c o n t r o l . In R. L. S o l s o ( E d . ) , Information P r o c e s s i n g and C o g n i t i o n : The L o y o l a Symposium. H i l l s d a l e , NJ: E r l b a u m . P o u l t o n , E. C. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . I n f l u e n t i a l c o m p a n i o n s : E f f e c t s of one s t r a t e g y on a n o t h e r i n the w i t h i n - s u b j e c t s d e s i g n s of c o g n i t i v e p s y c h o l o g y . P s y c h o l o g i c a l B u l l e t i n , 91, 673-690. Ramachandran, V. S. (1981). P e r c e p t i o n of a p p a r e n t movement. S t u d i e s i n t h e C o g n i t i v e S c i e n c e s , 11 . U n p u b l i s h e d m a n u s c r i p t , C o g n i t i v e S c i e n c e s Group, U n i v e r s i t y of California, Irvine. R a t c l i f f , R. & McKoon, G. ( 1981 ). Does a c t i v a t i o n r e a l l y s p r e a d ? P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 88, 454-462. Rock, I . & E b e n h o l t z , S. ( 1 9 6 2 ) . S t r o b o s c o p i c movement b a s e d on change o f phenomenal r a t h e r t h a n r e t i n a l l o c a t i o n . The A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l of P s y c h o l o g y , 75, 193-207. Rock, I . .& Gutman, D. ( 1 9 8 1 ) . The e f f e c t of f o r m p e r c e p t i o n . J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l P e r c e p t i o n and P e r f o r m a n c e , 1_, 275-285.  i n a t t e n t i o n on P s y c h o l o g y : Human  Rouse, R. 0. & V e r i n i s , J . S. ( 1 9 6 2 ) . The e f f e c t of a s s o c i a t i v e c o n n e c t i o n s on t h e r e c o g n i t i o n of f l a s h e d w o r d s . J o u r n a l of V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and V e r b a l B e h a v i o r , J _ , 300-303.  131 S e k u k l e r , R., P a n t l e , A. & L e v i n s o n , E. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . P h y s i o l o g i c a l b a s i s of m o t i o n p e r c e p t i o n . In R. H e l d , H. W. L e i b o w i t z & H. T e u b e r ( E d s . ) , Handbook of S e n s o r y P h y s i o l o g y , V o l . V I I I : P e r c e p t i o n . New Y o r k : S p r i n g e r - V e r l a g . Shaw, R. & P i t t e n g e r , J . ( 1 9 7 7 ) . P e r c e i v i n g t h e f a c e of change i n c h a n g i n g f a c e s : I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r a t h e o r y of o b j e c t p e r c e p t i o n . In R. Shaw & J . B r a n s f o r d ( E d s . ) , P e r c e i v i n g , A c t i n g , and Knowing. H i l l s d a l e , NJ: E r l b a u m . S h e p a r d , R. N. & M e t z l e r , J . ( 1 9 7 1 ) . M e n t a l t h r e e - d i m e n s i o n a l o b j e c t s . S c i e n c e , 171,  rotation 701-705.  S h e p a r d , R. N. & Podgorny, P. ( 1 9 7 8 ) . C o g n i t i v e t h a t r e s e m b l e p e r c e p t u a l p r o c e s s e s . In W. K. Handbook of L e a r n i n g and C o g n i t i v e P r o c e s s e s H i l l s d a l e , NJ: E r l b a u m .  processes Estes (Ed.), ( V o l . 5).  S h e p a r d , R. N. & Z a r e , S. L. ( 1 9 8 3 ) . P a t h - g u i d e d m o t i o n . Sc i e n c e , 220, 632-634. Simon, H. 488.  A.  ( 1 9 7 4 ) . How  big  apparent  i s a chunk? S c i e n c e ,  183,'  S m i t h , W. M. & G u l i c k , W. L. ( 1 9 5 6 ) . V i s u a l c o n t o u r movement p e r c e p t i o n . Sc i e n c e , 124, 316-317. S q u i r e s , P. C. ( 1 9 3 1 ) . The i n f l u e n c e of v i s u a l movement. A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l of 64.  and  482-  and  hue on a p p a r e n t P s y c h o l o g y , 43,  49-  Sudevan, P. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . C h r o n o m e t r i c a n a l y s i s of p r e p a r a t i o n . U n p u b l i s h e d m a n u s c r i p t , U n i v e r s i t y of R o c h e s t e r . T a y l o r , D. A. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . Time c o u r s e of c o n t e x t of E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y : G e n e r a l , 106,  e f f e c t s . Journal 404-426.  Townsend, V. M. ( 1 9 7 3 ) . L o s s of s p a t i a l and i d e n t i t y information following a t a c h i s t o s c o p i c exposure. Journal of E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 98, 113-118. T r e i s m a n , A. M. ( 1 9 6 9 ) . S t r a t e g i e s and models of a t t e n t i o n . P s y c h o l o g i c a l Review, 76, 282-299.  selective  T r e i s m a n , A. ( 1 9 7 9 ) . The p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e a l i t y of l e v e l s p r o c e s s i n g . In L. S. Cermak & F. I . M. C r a i k ( E d s . ) , L e v e l s of P r o c e s s i n g i n Human Memory. H i l l s d a l e , N J : Erlbaum.  of  T r e i s m a n , A. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . P e r c e p t u a l g r o u p i n g and a t t e n t i o n i n v i s u a l s e a r c h f o r f e a t u r e s and f o r o b j e c t s . J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y : Human P e r c e p t i o n and P e r f o r m a n c e , 8, 194-214.  1 32 T r e i s m a n , A. ( 1 9 8 5 ) . P r o p e r t i e s , p a r t s , and o b j e c t s . B o f f , L. Kaufman & J . Thomas ( E d s . ) , Handbook o f P e r c e p t i o n and Human p e r f o r m a n c e . (in press).  Preattentive  In  K.  Treisman,  A.  Treisman, theory  A. M. & G e l a d e , G. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . A f e a t u r e - i n t e g r a t i o n o f a t t e n t i o n . C o g n i t i v e P s y c h o l o g y , 12, 97-136.  T r e i s m a n , A., Kahneman, D. & B u r k e l l , o b j e c t s and t h e c o s t o f f i l t e r i n g . P s y c h o p h y s i c s , 33, 527-532.  processing in vision.  J . (1983). P e r c e p t u a l Perception &  T r e i s m a n , A. & P a t e r s o n , R. ( 1 9 8 4 ) . Emergent f e a t u r e s , a t t e n t i o n , and o b j e c t p e r c e p t i o n . J o u r n a l o f E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y : Human P e r c e p t i o n and P e r f o r m a n c e , 10, ,12-31. T r e i s m a n , A., R u s s e l l , R. & G r e e n , J . ( 1 9 7 5 ) . B r i e f v i s u a l s t o r a g e of shape and movement. In P. M. A. R a b b i t t & S. D o r n i c ( E d s . ) , A t t e n t i o n and P e r f o r m a n c e V. L o n d o n : Academic P r e s s . Treisman, A.M. & S c h m i d t , H. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . I l l u s o r y c o n j u n c t i o n s i n t h e p e r c e p t i o n of o b j e c t s . C o g n i t i v e P s y c h o l o g y , 14, 107-1 41 . T u l v i n g , E . ( 1 9 7 2 ) . E p i s o d i c and s e m a n t i c memory. In E . T u l v i n g & W. D o n a l d s o n ( E d s . ) , O r g a n i z a t i o n o f Memory. York: Academic P r e s s .  New  T u r v e y , M. T. & K r a v e t z , S. ( 1 9 7 0 ) . R e t r i e v a l f r o m i c o n i c memory w i t h shape as t h e s e l e c t i o n c r i t e r i o n . P e r c e p t i o n & P s y c h o p h y s i c s , 8, 171-172. T v e r s k y , A. ( 1 9 7 7 ) . F e a t u r e s of s i m i l a r i t y . Review, 84, 327-352.  Psychological  U l l m a n , S. ( 1 9 8 0 ) . A g a i n s t d i r e c t p e r c e p t i o n . The B e h a v i o r a l and B r a i n S c i e n c e s , 3, 373-415. Von  F i e a n d t , K. & M o u s t g a a r d , I . K. W o r l d . L o n d o n : Academic P r e s s .  ( 1 9 7 7 ) . The P e r c e p t u a l  Von  W r i g h t , J . M. ( 1 9 6 8 ) . S e l e c t i o n i n v i s u a l immediate memory. Q u a r t e r l y J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 62-68.  W a l l a c h , H. & O ' C o n n e l l , D. N. ( 1 9 5 3 ) . The k i n e t i c e f f e c t . J o u r n a l of E x p e r i m e n t a l P s y c h o l o g y , 45,  20,  depth 205-217.  Y u i l l e , J . C. & S t e i g e r , J . H. ( 1 9 8 2 ) . N o n h o l i s t i c p r o c e s s i n g i n m e n t a l r o t a t i o n : Some s u g g e s t i v e e v i d e n c e . P e r c e p t i o n & P s y c h o p h y s i c s , 3J_, 201-209.  133 Appendix  All The  515  large-inconsistent  540  LARGE-CONTROL  536  small-consi stent  557  small-ineonsi stent  583  SMALL-CONTROL  556  segregation  (1982) h a s i s s u e d  to influence  within-subjects  encountered loosely  in foreperiod  vindicated  the  with  by t h e f a c t respect  subject's  that  normally  likely  require  warning  employed  studies  that  (Sudevan,  the segregated  According  against  i n one condition been  experiments at l e a s t  practiced herein  field-1  to Poulton  1980).  is partially conditions  differ  i s i r r e l e v a n t to (1982),  conditions  d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g i e s a r e t h e ones most  t o generate asymmetric  with only risk.  preparation  to field-1--and  task.  methodologically  and s u c h p r o b l e m s have  the present  However, t h e s e g r e g a t i o n  only  a strong  the c o n t r o l  p e r f o r m a n c e on a companion  designs,  resembling  from  i s not  the p o t e n t i a l f o r the s t r a t e g y  condition  ms  of preview c o n d i t i o n s  f o r i n t e r p r e t i v e purposes  Poulton  ignoring  3 were:  large-consistent  conditions  in  of Experiment 3  mean RTs of E x p e r i m e n t  The  ideal.  Six Conditions  strategy  transfers.  Conditions  t a s k - i r r e l e v a n t d i f f e r e n c e s , then, a r e not a t great  Moreover, not only  irrelevant,  a r e the d i f f e r e n c e s here  they are a l s o d i f f i c u l t  to notice  task-  e v e n when  1 34 looked  for.  A pattern Experiment  3.  reveals  itself  For  'large' conditions,  indistinguishable and  f o r the  from the  'small'  indistinguishable As  indicated  results  control  of  conditions  spatiotemporal to the effect  trials  and  An  box  elimination  the  only  influential  that  presented  blank  the  the  when p r e s e n t e d trials,  d i s p l a y i n g a blank in field-1; RTs  to  small the  large  that  again  the  stimuli. that on  the  This size  'large'  and  asterisk  RTs  subjects use  a  process a  compatible  large  targets,  would match t h o s e  because a small  because a small  in  i s at a l l  For  targets,  look  ( i e . as  r e s u l t s are  would match t h o s e p r o d u c e d  in field-1  data.  of  stimulus  in field-1.  for small  appropriate  intended,  inference  of  field-1  instances  stimulus  that  in field-1  pattern  f i t the  asserts  the  the  RTs.  trials.  large  Notice  only  an  facilitation  'small'  to respond  large-inconsistent  trials  form of  on  not  involving neutral  f o r the  stimulus). idea  as  unparsimonious  t a k e s the  because a  originally  serve  a l t e r n a t i v e explanation  not-large  by  do  integration  inhibition  target  with  really  as  consistent  paper, t h i s  explanations  is that,  rather  object  the  RTs,  are  fast  problematic  A number of  explanation  control  of  main body of  are  inconsistent  c o n t r o l RTs  relatively  r e s u l t s of  c o n t r o l RTs  slow  empty boxes i s p r o b a b l y  field.  One  the  from the  i n the  complete  relatively  conditions,  is interpretively  consisting  leads  the  i n the  on by  on  produced  stimulus  was  small-consistent displaying a  stimulus  was  presented  1 35 in  field-1. Perhaps  the  empty-field-1 size.  The  small  control  to the  perceptually object  i n the  makes a p p a r e n t  condition  Unfortunately,  these  the  conditions  spatiotemporal in  the  the of  mimic  the  i f the  These  blanks  respect  to  having  a  results  were  respect  control conditions of  t o the  of  size  i t sheds no  physical  Experiment  an  adequate  experiments.  r e s u l t s obtained  i s so ambiguous  i n t e g r a t i o n of  of  implementing  f e a t u r a l preview  pattern  with  the  stimuli.  difficulty  experiments.  box.  (at l e a s t w i t h  small  i n the  neutral  i s that  those c o n d i t i o n s  target  expected  equivalent  Consideration  control  in fact  field-1  pattern  e f f e c t ) to  control  i s not  control conditions  stimulus  conform  most p a r s i m o n i o u s h y p o t h e s i s  with light  properties  the on  the  occurring  3  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096496/manifest

Comment

Related Items