Pec 2
Pec 2
Pec 2
LNS_UNED
Psicología de la Atención
1º Grado en Psicología
Facultad de Psicología
Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia
Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7725022
Este documento se distribuye bajo la siguiente licencia Creative Commons:
PÁGINA 1
PEC 2: Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task
Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7725022
IMPORTANTE
PÁGINA 2
PEC 2: Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task
Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7725022
Artículo de referencia
El artículo que se utilizará para esta práctica (ver ANEXO) lleva por título “Effects of
noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task”. Fue publicado
en 1974, en la revista Perception & Psychophysics (volumen 16).
PÁGINA 3
PEC 2: Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task
Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7725022
ejemplo, si me piden que localice en una matriz una letra H entre otras letras
consonantes, estoy obligado a explorarlas sucesivamente y dilucidar ante cada una de
ellas si es o no el estímulo que debo localizar. Obviamente, la solución a este problema
pasa por diseñar tareas en las que la exploración de los distractores no forme parte
directa de la tarea, de ahí que los Eriksen abandonaran el uso de tareas de búsqueda
visual por otras tareas más idóneas.
Como sabemos, en el paradigma de los flancos una letra central (target) es flanqueada
por estímulos irrelevantes (flancos). Frente a las tareas anteriores, este paradigma
presenta la ventaja de facilitar al máximo la identificación del estímulo relevante.
Observe que:
PÁGINA 4
PEC 2: Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task
Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7725022
ambas respuestas –p. ej., incrementar el espaciamiento entre las letras– facilitará la
tarea.
Advertencias terminológicas:
Los términos “noise”, “noise letters” o “noise elements” que recurrentemente aparecen en
el artículo corresponden a lo que entendemos por distractores, incluidos los flancos (el
término cotidiano “flanco” no se utilizó en el paper original sino a partir de trabajos
posteriores).
Título
- Observe el título original: Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target
letter in a nonsearch task. ¿Lo considera adecuado? ¿Propondría otro título
alternativo?
Introducción
La introducción plantea el problema objeto de estudio. Durante su lectura, tenga en
cuenta lo expuesto en el apartado previo de “temática del artículo”. Vamos a ver cómo
lo allí explicado se concreta en la introducción:
PÁGINA 5
PEC 2: Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task
Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7725022
la lógica de estas nuevas tareas. En ellas, ¿existe o no influencia de los estímulos
distractores cuando hay que identificar el target? ¿Qué misión desempeña la
señal (indicator line)? ¿Cuándo se presenta la señal: antes o después de aparecer
los estímulos? ¿Qué se pretende presentando la señal con anterioridad? Hay tres
descubrimientos relevantes obtenidos en estas tareas de identificación. Respecto
al primero, el hecho de presentar la señal con anterioridad a los estímulos se
supone que debiera evitar la influencia de los distractores, pues el sujeto conoce
anticipadamente dónde aparecerá la letra target y focalizará su atención en dicha
posición ¿es cierto o no lo es? Respecto al segundo: ¿cómo afecta la proximidad
espacial de los distractores respecto al target? Finalmente, el último introduce
una explicación en términos de “competencia de respuestas” para explicar los
resultados (repase lo que ya conoce sobre este modelo teórico). Si un distractor
tiene asociada una respuesta semejante al target ¿cómo afectará al TR de la
identificación? Alternativamente, si el distractor tiene asociada una respuesta
incompatible a la del target ¿qué le sucederá al TR?
- Como continuación natural, los párrafos siguientes se dedican a explicar
teóricamente la evidencia comentada. Es decir, las razones por las que los
estímulos irrelevantes son difíciles de ignorar y, por lo tanto, afectan al
procesamiento del target. Teniendo en cuenta la capacidad del canal de PI, ¿por
qué se procesan los distractores junto al target? (observe el paralelismo de esta
propuesta con el modelo de Lavie de la pg. 175 del texto y el exceso de recursos
disponibles). Si el target convive con los distractores en el canal de
procesamiento, ¿cómo se selecciona la respuesta a favor del target y se inhibe la
de los distractores? ¿Qué papel juega la proximidad espacial entre ambos?
- El último párrafo de la introducción es un magnífico corolario a modo de
resumen: ¿Sería usted capaz de sintetizar los resultados obtenidos con
presentaciones circulares y explicar por qué se producen?
Método
De forma atípica, el Método se inicia con el subapartado denominado Diseño y
Justificación (Design and Rationale), y no con el de Participantes. Esta ligera trasposición
es debida a que es un artículo de los años 70 y la aplicación de normas APA no era tan
requerida como en la actualidad (en la sección de Referencias retomaremos este tema).
Los autores plantean un número considerable de predicciones que dan cuenta de los
posibles resultados de las manipulaciones experimentales que proponen en su diseño
PÁGINA 6
PEC 2: Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task
Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7725022
(competencia de respuesta, analizadores de características, competencia por los
analizadores de características y discriminación espacial). ¿Qué predicciones hacen los
autores respecto a ellas? Refiriéndonos a las manipulaciones experimentales sobre las
características de los flancos, ¿en qué tipo de ensayos se obtendrían TR más lentos? ¿Qué
explicaciones dan los autores teniendo en cuenta la competencia entre respuestas, el
espaciado entre las letras, las características físicas de los distractores en función del
sistema de clasificación de Gibson?
Sujetos 1
Como puede observar, en este artículo sólo han participado 6 estudiantes universitarios
(3 hombres y 3 mujeres) ¿Qué puede decir respecto al N empleado en este artículo?
¿Considera que sería suficiente considerando el número de ensayos que emplean los
autores? ¿Qué criterios de inclusión y exclusión establecen los autores? ¿Los considera
suficientes? Se indica que todos los sujetos tenían dominancia derecha para la mano y
para el ojo, ¿por qué esto es relevante en este experimento? ¿Podría haberse considerado
algún otro criterio de inclusión? ¿Cuál? ¿Considera que es conveniente emplear
estudiantes universitarios en los estudios? Analice los pros y los contras de esta forma
de proceder. ¿Considera oportuno que los participantes voluntarios sean
recompensados de alguna manera?
Como puede observar, en este apartado no se hace referencia a la aprobación del estudio
por algún Comité de Ética de la Investigación. De nuevo tiene que pensar en la fecha de
publicación del artículo. ¿Sería posible publicarlo en la actualidad sin este requisito?
Aparatos y estímulos.
1
La 7ª edición de las normas APA sugieren que se emplee el término participantes en
lugar de sujetos, quedando este último relegado a cuando se trabaja con animales no
humanos.
2
Antes del desarrollo comercial de los ordenadores, los taquistoscopios eran utilizados
en todos los laboratorios de percepción visual. En los aparatos clásicos, los estímulos se
dibujaban en tarjetas. Estas se introducían en el taquistoscopio y el sujeto las visualizaba
mediante el encendido/apagado de un conjunto de lámparas especiales. Aunque la
tecnología ha avanzado, muchos monitores comerciales de hoy en día no tienen la
capacidad de presentación de un taquistoscopio debido a sus tasas de refresco –por
ejemplo, un monitor de 60 Hz no permite presentaciones estimulares inferiores a 16,6
milisegundos–. Incluso hoy en día se han diseñado (y se usan) taquistoscopios cuando
las presentaciones visuales no son posibles lograrlas con un monitor LCD. En su lugar
PÁGINA 7
PEC 2: Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task
Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7725022
¿Qué utilidad tiene el hecho de mantener las condiciones de luminancia constantes?
¿Qué aparato permite su medición? ¿Qué unidad de medida se utiliza?
Con relación a los estímulos, ¿Qué tipo de estímulos se utilizaron? ¿Cómo se presentan?
¿Qué características tenían? ¿Considera que es importante el tipo de fuente utilizada?
¿por qué? ¿Qué dimensiones tenía el punto de fijación? ¿Qué tipo de respuesta tiene que
dar el sujeto? ¿Cómo comprueba el experimentador que el sujeto ha dado la respuesta?
¿Cómo se mide el TR? ¿En qué posición aparecían los estímulos (letras) respecto al
sujeto? ¿A qué distancia del ojo del sujeto se proyectaba la presentación estimular?
¿Cómo se establecía el espaciado entre las letras?
Procedimiento:
Observe cómo se describe el procedimiento. Como ya se ha indicado en la guía de
lectura, la idea es que otro grupo de investigadores distintos pueda replicar el trabajo en
otro laboratorio diferente.
PÁGINA 8
PEC 2: Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task
Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7725022
Teniendo en cuenta la finalidad de este apartado, ¿cree que está bien descrito el
procedimiento? ¿Sería capaz de repetir el estudio a partir de los datos disponibles?
Resultados
Considerando las predicciones realizadas por los investigadores en el apartado Design
and Rationale ¿Qué tipos de análisis estadísticos se llevaron a cabo? Los autores utilizan
un análisis de varianza (ANOVA) para comprobar si los resultados son significativos. En
algunas cuestiones de este análisis no vamos a entrar pues corresponden a cursos
superiores de estadística. Céntrese en los dos factores relevantes: el tipo de espaciado y
tipo de distractores.
PÁGINA 9
PEC 2: Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task
Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7725022
si se hubieran hecho comparaciones post hoc en el primer análisis de varianza? Las
comparaciones post hoc nos permitirían comparar cada nivel de un factor con cada uno
de los niveles del otro factor.
Discusión
La sección de Discusión comenta los resultados poniéndolos en relación con los
supuestos teóricos y predicciones manejadas en la Introducción. Las cuestiones
relevantes son dos: ¿Por qué los distractores se procesan juntamente con el target? ¿Por
qué los efectos disminuyen conforme aumenta el espaciamiento? Como ya se expuso en
la Introducción, las respuestas asociadas al target compiten con las asociadas a los
flancos, por lo que estas últimas debe inhibirse para seleccionar la primera. Además,
cualquier manipulación que facilite la discriminación entre ambas –el espaciamiento–
facilitará la selección. Céntrese exclusivamente en los párrafos que le indicamos:
PÁGINA 10
PEC 2: Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task
Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7725022
- Los párrafos sexto y séptimo proponen una explicación alternativa de los efectos
del espaciamiento en términos de contornos y procesamiento foveal periférico:
¿En qué reside esta explicación alternativa? ¿Por qué se descarta esta
explicación?
Referencias
- Observe las referencias del artículo. Estas no corresponden a normas APA tal
como las entendemos hoy en día. En la fecha de publicación (1974), las normas
APA no estaban tan extendidas como en la actualidad. Cada revista establecía –
y sigue ocurriendo en muchas de ellas– sus normas. En este caso la revista
pertenecía (y pertenece) a la Psychonomic Society 3.
- Las referencias son atingentes con el tema de estudio. Mire una por una.
¿Cuántas son artículos? ¿Hay alguna libro o capítulo de libro citado?
- Teniendo en cuenta que la publicación es de 1974, analice cómo la mayor parte
se encuentran en un rango de aproximadamente cinco años atrás. Las que
exceden dicho intervalo son trabajos clásicos y relevantes en el campo en dicha
época.
- Al final de las referencias aparece la fecha en la que la revista recepcionó el
artículo por primera vez (received for publication) y la fecha en la que finalmente
fue aceptado para su publicación (accepted). Esto se sigue haciendo en la
actualidad. Entre esas fechas otros colegas del área (reviewers) criticaron el
manuscrito original, requiriendo a los autores aclaraciones sobre el
planteamiento teórico, el método, los análisis, etc. Los autores tuvieron un
pequeño margen de tiempo para contestar a esas críticas, defender su punto de
vista y argumentar sus decisiones. El rango de tiempo entre la recepción de un
artículo por el editor y su publicación es variable: algunas revistas son muy ágiles
en este punto, mientras que en otras es más dilatado. A todo este proceso se
denomina peer review (revisión por pares).
3
La Psychonomic es una asociación psicológica estadounidense que fue fundada en un
bar de Washington en 1958 por un grupo de psicólogos cognitivos experimentales
descontentos con la APA (esta última fundada en 1892). En aquella época la APA tenía
una orientación dirigida hacia el desempeño profesional (en línea con lo que es el actual
Colegio de Psicólogos); de hecho, en las reuniones anuales, el espacio dedicado a
presentación de resultados experimentales era mínimo si se comparaba con los aportes
más profesionales, especialmente clínicos. Más información:
https://www.psychonomic.org/
PÁGINA 11
PEC 2: Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task
Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7725022
ANEXO
PÁGINA 12
PEC 2: Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task
Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7725022
Perception & Psychophysics
1974, Vol. 16, No.1, 143-149
During a I-sec tachistoscopic exposure, Ss responded with a right or left leverpress to a single target
letter from the sets Hand K or Sand C. The target always appeared directly above the fixation cross.
Experimentally varied were the types of noise letters (response compatible or incompatible) flanking the
target and the spacing between the letters in the display. In all noise conditions, reaction time (RT)
decreased as between-letter spacing increased. However, noise letters of the opposite response set were
found to impair RT significantly more than same response set noise, while mixed noise letters belonging
to neither set but having set-related features produced intermediate impairment. Differences between
two target-alone control conditions, one presented intermixed with noise-condition trials and one
presented separately in blocks, gave evidence of a preparatory set on the part of Ss to inhibit responses
to the noise letters. It was concluded that S cannot prevent processing of noise letters occurring within
about 1 deg of the target due to the nature of processing channel capacity and must inhibit his response
until he is able to discriminate exactly which letter is in the target position. This discrimination is more
difficult and time consuming at closer spacings, and inhibition is more difficult when noise letters
indicate the opposite response from the target.
A popular experimental approach to the study of target identification, we need an anchor or baseline
visual information processing has been to employ a condition, i.e., what is the effect of noise on speed or
display in which a target is embedded among a number accuracy in target identification when no visual search is
of noise elements. Typically, the target has been a letter required? Can a letter that always appears in the same
embedded in a display containing other letters. Initially, known location in the visual field be identified as rapidly
a major concern of this research was whether the search when surrounded by noise letters as when it appears
process itself was serial or parallel in nature. However, it alone? The search task by definition requires some
soon became apparent that many important questions processing of noise in order to locate the target. Thus,
centered around the effects of the noise stimuli. inferences as to the effects of noise are confounded with
As would be expected, accuracy or speed in assumptions as to how this search of the display is
identifying the target was found to be dependent upon carried out.
the similarity of the target and noise (McIntyre, Fox, & There is strong evidence that even when search is
Neale, 1970; Estes, 1972). Reaction time (RT) to the eliminated, noise letters or other stimuli impair the
target increased, and probability of its detection processing of the designated target letter. Eriksen and his
decreased as the number of noise elements increased associates (Eriksen & Hoffman, 1972, 1973; Colegate,
(Estes, 1972). In attempts to understand how these Hoffman, & Eriksen, 1973) have employed circular
noise variables entered into the search task, it became displays in which an indicator line is presented to the S
necessary to control for such variables as the retinal at various intervals before the target letter and the
locus of the noise and the target and the spacing remainder of the display appears. The indicator clearly
between the target and the closest noise letters. designates to the S the location of the target letter.
Questions were raised as to the extent to which noise While this research has been focused upon the nature of
letters were processed, and the possibility of shared selective attention that is involved, there have been three
feature analyzers or detectors was considered. major findings that are directly relevant to the visual
In spite of repeated investigations of the above search task and the effects of noise upon target location
parameters, the nature of the search process and the and identification. First, attentional selectivity is unable
effects of noise elements is far from resolved (Estes, to eliminate completely the effects of extraneous
1972; Kinchla, 1974; Gardner, 1973; Shiffrin & stimuli. Even when the S is provided with an indicator as
Gardner, 1972). At this point in the research effort it much as 400-500 msec before the target and the noise
would appear fruitful to modify the experimental task. elements appear (ample time to process the indicator
To understand the search task and the effect of noise on information), the presence of noise letters in the display
delays RT to the target letter. Second, the spatial
'This investigation was supported by U.S. Public Health proximity of noise letters to the target has a nonlinear
Service Research Grant MH-1206 and U.S. Public Health Service
Research Career Program Award K6-MH·22014. effect upon target RT. Noise letters within ~ deg of
143
Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7725022
144 ERIKSEN AND ERIKSEN
Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7725022
EFFECTS OF NOISE LETTERS 145
Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7725022
146 ERIKSEN AND ERIKSEN
550 Conditions: The effects for spacing and noise conditions were both
significant beyond the .0001 level with Fs of 58.28, df =
10-0
2e-e
3o-<J 2,10, and F = 28.23, df = 4,20, respectively. The S'
4_
Sir-A
variable was significant at the .05 level. There was also a
significant Noise Condition by Spacing interaction
[F(8,40) = 16.08] .
The nature of the results can be seen in Fig. 1, where
500 mean RT across Ss is plotted as a function of spacing for
each of the five noise conditions. All five noise
conditions showed decreasing RT as separation between
... the display letters increases from .06 to 1 deg of visual
Ql
on angle. The Spacing by Conditions interaction reflects the
E
fact that the difference between conditions is greatest at
the closest spacing. When the display letters have been
450 separated by 1 deg of angle, performance for the
noise-identical, noise-same-response, and noise-similar
conditions is essentially the same. Over all values of the
* control
mixed spacing variable, RT to the condition in which the noise
was a letter of the opposite response set was the longest,
while the fastest RTs were obtained when the noise was
identical to the target. There is little difference between
* control
blocked this latter condition and the condition in which the
.5· r noise letter was the other member of the same target set
Between-Letter Spacing
(calling for the same overt response). The lack of a
significant difference between these two conditions is
Fig. 1. Mean reaction times (R Ts) as a function of spacing (six attested to by the finding that half of the Ss were faster
Ss combined) for the five experimental conditions and two under the noise-same-response condition than they were
control conditions. Experimental conditions are as follows: when the noise was identical to the target.
(1) noise same as target; (2) noise response compatible; (3) noise
response incompatible; (4) noise heterogeneous similar; (5) noise With the exception of the closest spacing, the
heterogeneous dissimilar. dissimilar-noise condition, in which the noise letters
exhibited features similar to letters of the opposite
and that this was the only letter he was to respond to. Viewing target set, gave longer RTs than when the noise letters
was monocular with the right eye. The fixation field went off contained features similar to the target.
and the target and noise letters appeared simultaneously as 8
pressed the handswitch button. They remained on for I sec and When the letters of the display are separated by 1 deg
terminated together, at which time the fixation field came back of visual angle, the noise-similar, noise-identical, and
on. Two small lights, visible only to the E, indicated the noise-same-response conditions yield RTs that are
direction in which the lever had been pressed. Any trials in essentially the same as those obtained for trials in which
which 8 pressed the lever in the wrong direction or both
directions were not recorded and were rerun later in the session.
the target letter alone is presented in blocks of trials
A note was made of the error. containing the other noise conditions. However, this
All combinations of conditions by spacing were randomly mean RT value is appreciably above that obtained for
intermixed within blocks of 32 trials. Four trials in each block the target letter alone in blocked trials. The difference is
contained the target letter alone. An additional block of 12 trials approximately 30 msec. The difference between the two
in the single-letter alone condition was run during each session.
For experimental presentation, Conditions 4 and 5 (see Table 1) target-letter-alone conditions was tested in a three-way
were subdivided as follows: 4a-curved target letters (8 and C) analysis of variance (Ss by Target Letter by Mixed vs
with similar noise (G, J, and Q); 4b-angular target letters (H and Blocked Trial Presentation). The effect for mixed vs
K) with similar noise (N, W, and Z); Sa-curved target letters (8 blocked trials was significant [F(I,5) = 42.38, p < .01],
as was that for Ss [F(5,3) = 20.87, p < .05] . There was
and C) with dissimilar noise (N, W, and Z); and 5b-angular
target letters (H and K) with dissimilar noise (G, J, and Q).
Each S participated in two practice sessions before beginning also a significant Ss by Letter interaction [F(15,15) =
the experiment. Six experimental sessions were run, each 7.59, p < .001], reflecting the fact that all Ss tended to
consisting of three blocks of 32 trials, plus one block of 12 make the lever response to the right somewhat faster.
single-letter trials. This yielded a total of 24 trials per S for each There was no significant effect attributable to RTs to
condition by spacing combination plus 18 trials per 8 for each
single letter in each of the two control conditions (mixed and the different target letters in the response sets.
blocked). The data for the noise-similar and noise-dissimilar
conditions were also analyzed separately in a three-way
RESULTS analysis of variance (Ss by Spacing by Conditions). Both
the spacing and noise variables were significant at or
The RT data were first analyzed in a three-way beyond the .01 level [F(2,10) = 55.32 and F(1,5) =
analysis of variance (Ss by Spacing by Noise Conditions). 15.34, respectively] . The interaction between these two
Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7725022
EFFECTS OF NOISE LETTERS 147
Table 3
Errors Per Noise Condition: Six Ss Combined
.06 Deg Yz Deg 1 Deg
Number Per- Number Per- Number Per-
Condition of Errors cent of Errors cent of Errors cent
Noise Homogeneous
31 21.5 24 16.6 6 4
Target Opposite Response Set
Noise Homogeneous N=
144 1 <1 4 2.7 6 4
Target Other Member of Same Response Set
Noise = Target 6 4 5 3.4 4 2.7
Noise Heterogeneous
Target Features Opposite Response Set 34 11.8 15 5.2 10 3.5
N=
Noise Heterogeneous 288
Target Features Same Response Set 20 6.9 5 1.7 18 6.3
variables was significant beyond the .05 level [F(2,1O) = possibility of rather gross effects such as these upon
4.83] . input processing can be discarded because the delaying
The response errors were also examined. For the two effect of noise is markedly determined by its response
control conditions, target letter alone-mixed had a 5% compatibility with the target. In terms of physical
error rate as contrasted with a 7% error rate for target characteristics of the stimulus, flanking the target letter
alone in blocked trials. This does not appear to be a by a different letter that has the same learned response
sufficient difference to attribute the superiority of the as the target would seem to provide as much physical
blocked trials to a speed-accuracy tradeoff. In fact, for complexity as flanking the target by a letter requiring an
one S who made only one error on all target-alone mixed opposite response. Yet in only the latter condition is RT
trials and two errors on target-alone blocked trials, there to the target materially increased. Since the effect of
was still a large difference between the two in RT: an noise is strongly determined by its response
average RT of 423 msec on the mixed and 405 msec on compatibility with the target letter, support is given not
the blocked. only to the conclusion that the effects of noise are the
A breakdown of the error data for the different noise result of response competition or interference, but
conditions is presented in Table 3. These error data further that this results from. at least some of the noise
reflect essentially the same differences between noise stimuli being processed along with the target to the
conditions and the effect of the spacing variable as was point where they are identified enough to tend to elicit
obtained for the RT measures. It is readily apparent that appropriate responses. This conclusion is commensurate
noise of the opposite response set not only slowed Ss' with our suggestion, made in the introduction of this
responses but caused them to err much more frequently paper, that there is a limit to the degree to which a
at the two closest spacings. Similarly, noise consisting of human S can restrict his visual attentional capacity and
letters having features similar to those of the other targetthat this minimal level is in excess of the capacity
set tended to have much the same effect. required for processing a singleletter.
To the extent that one can make a distinction
DISCUSSION between the input side of stimulus processing and the
output or response side, we feel that the present data
It is quite clear from the above data that even when favor a theory that putsthe locus of the effect of noise
an S is not required to search for a target letter in a at the stage of response selection. One finding in the
multiletter display, the presence of other letters slows present data that would tend to implicate an effect at
his RT to identification of a target letter. Further, they the input processing stage is the finding that even
exert a retarding effect upon RT even when the precise response-compatible noise (noise-identical and
location of the target letter is known to S and the noise-same-response conditions) gave longer RTs at the
target's position in the visual field is favored over the closest stimulus spacings compared with the no-noise
noise letters in terms of its location on the fovea. Thus, mixed condition. If one adopted a limited-energy
the effect of noise letters upon target identification is parallel processing model (Rumelhart, 1970), the effect
not something that is inherent in the search process. could be attributed to the distribution of the limited
However, the question remains as to how this noise energy over a larger number of stimulus elements with
introduces its effects upon the idenfication process. an attendant reduction of the speed with which any
From the present data, it is apparent that the effect of single element was processed. In this view, even when
noise is not at some gross level. It is not a sort of the noise letters lead to the same response as the target,
"distraction effect," nor a primitive perceptual process their presence in the display would require some of the
that involves the perception of a whole before its parts available processing energy, resulting in the slowing of
can be analyzed, nor a rudimentry noting of the the processing of the target.
presence or absence of items in the visual field. The A decrement resulting from energy limitations would
Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7725022
148 ERIKSEN AND ERIKSEN
have to be in addition to the observed response in terms of letter position requires that Ss use some type
interference effect. Such a model would also have to of inhibitory process in the task to prevent responses
account for the prominent effect we obtained as a from occurring until the selection has been made. The
function of the spacing between target and noise letters. presence of such an inhibitory process would account
It is not clear why processing capacity would have to be for the differences between these two control
shared when the stimuli were .06 deg of angle apart but conditions. In the mixed control, the target letter
not when separated by ~ or 1 deg of visual angle. appeared without noise but on unannounced trials that
Our interpretation of the obtained spacing effect is occurred during blocks in which all experimental
that it represents the ease with which a S can make a conditions were represented. In this case, when S
spatial or location discrimination. If the S is processing, initiated a trial it would be to his advantage to have
essentially simultaneously, the target letter and one or inhibitory processes activated, whereas in the blocked
more noise letters, some form of an inhibitory process condition S knew that all trials in the 12-trial block
has to be activated in order to prevent responses to the would consist only of the target letter being presented.
noise letters and to permit selection of the response RT in that latter condition averaged approximately
appropriate to the target location. This response 30 msec faster than in the other control. Here the S
selection must be made in terms of the target letter's could have discarded any inhibitory process in
location in the display. As with discrimination tasks in preparation for a trial.
general, the more discriminable the differences in An interpretation of noise effects as resulting from
location in the display, the faster will be the selection interference at the response selection stage requires a
process. This pin-pointing of the target's location would closer examination of the results obtained from the
be slowest when the spatial separation was quite small. noise-similar and noise-dissimilar conditions. At the
As the spatial separation increased, the decrease in RT closest spacings, these two conditions gave RTs midway
for this discrimination would rapidly become in the range between same response noise and opposite
asymptotic. Once a difference is big enough, further response noise. At the two wider spacings, similar noise
increases do not speed discrimination RTs. Even on gave RTs that were not reliably different from those
those trials where all the noise responses led to the same obtained to iden tical or same response noise, while
response as the target letter, it is reasonable to expect dissimilar noise approached the RTs obtained under
that the S would still have a check operation to verify opposite response noise condition. That both similar and
that the letter to which he was responding was indeed dissimilar noise have the same effect on RT at the
the one in the target location, since it was necessary for .06-deg spacing is not readily explainable. However, at
him to be prepared on every trial for any of the noise the two wider spacings, their performance is consistent
conditions. with what would be expected in terms of stimulus
Other possible sources of the spacing effect seem less generalization. Similar noise letters had features in
likely. At the closest spacing, the possibility of contour common with the target letter, whereas dissimilar noise
interference between adjacent letters exists (Flom, letters had features in common with the opposite target
Weymouth, & Kahneman, 1963). If present, its relative set. To attribute the effect to stimulus generalization,
contribution would be slight since the spacing variable however, does little more than relate the finding, to an
interacts markedly with the response compatibility of established phenomenon in the experimen tal literature
the noise letters, and there is no obvious reason why (Guttman & Kalish, 1956).
contour interference between letters should be greater if The questions of interest at this point are what
their responses are incompatible than if they are mediates stimulus similarity and how is a common
compatible. response facilitated? Bamber (1969) has proposed an
Since the target letter always appeared ~ deg above "identity detector" based on the physical identity of
the fixation point, noise letters fell on progressively less two stimuli. However, our data indicate that both a
acute areas of the fovea as the spacing between the physical and functional identity are detected with equal
stimuli increased to 1 deg of angle. It is possible that speed.
transmission time for fibers in the retina increases for Estes (1972) and Bjork and Estes (1973) have
receptors farther from the center of the fovea. Further, attributed the effect of noise letters to possible
Sternberg (1967) has shown that degrading a stimulus competition between or an inhibition among feature
leads to an increase in its processing time. While such analyzers. Their interpretation places the effects of noise
effects may possibly be involved in the present spacing on the input side of processing. A suggestion by Bjork
effect, their contribution would be minimal in view of and Estes (1973) that more complex letters with more
the marked interaction between spacing and the features produce more lateral masking and are in turn
response compatibility of the noise letters. more resistant to lateral masking was not borne out by
Our view that the spacing effect primarily reflects the the present experiment. It is, of course, possible that the
ease of response selection is supported by the obtained strong effect of response conflict obscured any effects of
difference between the two control conditions-target feature complexity. While our interpretation emphasizes
alone mixed vs target alone blocked. Response selection the locus of the effect at a response selection stage, it
Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7725022
EFFECTS OF NOISE LETTERS 149
does not preclude the possibility of submechanisms such resolution and contour interaction. Journal of the Optical
Society of America, 1963,53,1026-1032.
as feature detectors playing a role on input processing .. Gardner, G. T. Evidence for independent parallel channels in
Indeed, such mechanisms as this may be the basis for the tachistoscopic perception. Cognitive Psychology 1973 4,
130-155. ' ,
stimulus generalization effects. Gibson, E. J. Principles of perceptual learning and development.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969.
Guttman, N., & Kalish, H. I. Discriminability and stimulus
REFERENCES generalization. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1956 51,
79-88. '
Bamber, D. Reaction times and error rates for Kinchla, R. Detecting target elements in multielement arrays: A
"same"-"different" judgments of multidimensional stimuli. confusability model. Perception & Psychophysics, 1974 15,
Perception & Psychophysics, 1969, 6, 169-174. 149-158. '
Biork, E. L., & Estes, W. K. Letter identification in relation to McIntyre, Coo Fox, Roo & Neale, J. Effects of noise similarity and
linguistic context and masking conditions. Memory & redundancy on the information processed from brief visual
Cognition, 1973, 1,217-223. displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 1970, 7,328-332.
Colegate, R. L., Hoffman, J. E., & Eriksen, C. W. Selective Rumelhart, D. E. A multtcornponent theory of the perception of
encoding from multielement visual displays. Perception & briefly exposed visual displays. Journal of Mathematical
Psychophysics, 1973, 14, 217-224. Psychology, 1970, 7, 191-218.
Eriksen, C. W., & Hoffman, J. E. Temporal and spatial Shiffrin, R., & Gardner, G. T. Visual processing capacity and
characteristics of selective encoding from visual displays. attentional control. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
Perception & Psychophysics, 1972, 12, 201-204. 1972,93,72'82.
Eriksen, C. W., & Hoffman, J. E. The extent of processing of Sternberg, S. Two operations in character recognition: Some
noise elements during selective encoding from visual displays. evidence from reaction time measurements. Perception &
Perception & Psychophysics, 1973, 14,155-160. Psychophysics, 1967, 2, 45·53.
Estes, W. K. Interactions of signal and background variables in
visual processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 1972, 12,
278-286. (Received for publication February 19,1974;
F'lorn , M. C., Weymouth, F. W., & Kahneman, D. Visual accepted March 27, 1974.)
Reservados todos los derechos. No se permite la explotación económica ni la transformación de esta obra. Queda permitida la impresión en su totalidad.
a64b0469ff35958ef4ab887a898bd50bdfbbe91a-7725022