Influences of target and nontarget shapes on target identification

Psychological Research

Volumn 62, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 266-274

  Chastain, Garvin ^a   Cheal, MaryLou ^b  

^a BOISE STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040218509     PISSN: 03400727     EISSN: 14302772     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s004260050056     Document Type: Article

References (42)

1. Chastain, G. (1981). Asymmetric identification of parafoveal stimulus pairs: Features perturbations or failure in feature extraction? Canadian Journal of Psychology, 35, 13-23.
2. Chastain, G. (1996). Multiple-element line segment precues: Orientation and location effects on attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 1015-1025.
3. Chastain, G., & Cheal, M. L. (1997). Facilitatory or inhibitory nontarget effects in the location-cuing paradigm. Consciousness and Cognition, 6, 328-347.
4. Chastain, G., & Cheal, M. L. (1998). Automatic versus directed attention with single-element and multiple-element precues. Visual Cognition, 5, 339-364.
5. Chastain, G., & Cheal, M. L. (in press). Time-course of attention effects with abrupt-onset and offset single- and multiple-element precues. American Journal of Psychology.
6. Chastain, G., Cheal, M. L., & Lyon, D. R. (1996). Attention and nontarget effects in the location-cuing paradigm. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 300-309.
7. Chastain, G., & Lawson, L. (1979). Identification asymmetry of parafoveal stimulus pairs. Perception & Psychophysics, 26, 363-368.
8. Cheal, M. L. (1993). Rapid performance improvement across short precue-target delays is most likely due to effect of attention and not to masking from peripheral precues: A comment on Chastain, 1992. Acta Psychologica, 83, 79-86.
9. Cheal, M. L. (1997). Understanding diverse effects of visual attention with the VAP-filters metaphor. Consciousness & Cognition, 6, 348-362.
10. Cheal, M. L., & Chastain, G. (1998). Attention effects of moving and stationary single-element and multiple-element precues: Limits of automaticity. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 873-887.
11. Cheal, M. L., & Gregory, M. (1997). Evidence of limited capacity and noise reduction with single-element displays in the locationcuing paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 51-71.
12. Cheal, M. L., & Lyon, D. (1989). Attention effects on form discrimination at different eccentricities. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41 A, 719-746.
13. Cheal, M. L., & Lyon, D. R. (1991). Central and peripheral precuing of forced-choice discrimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 859-880.
14. Cheal, M. L., & Lyon, D. R. (1992a). Attention in visual search: Multiple search classes. Perception & Psychophysics, 52, 113-138.
15. Cheal, M. L., & Lyon, D. R. (1992b). Benefits from attention depend on the target type in location-precued discrimination. Acta Psychologica 81, 243-267.
16. Cheal, M. L., Lyon, D. R., & Gottlob, L. R. (1994). A framework for understanding the allocation of attention-precued discrimination. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47A, 699-739.
17. Cheal, M. L., Lyon, D. R., & Hubbard, D. C. (1991). Does attention have different effects on line orientation and line arrangement discrimination? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 825-857.
18. Colegate, R. L., Hoffman, J. E., & Eriksen, C. W. (1973). Selective encoding from multielement visual displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 14, 217-224.
19. Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143-149.
20. Eriksen, C. W. (1990). Attentional search of the visual field. In D. Brogan (Ed.), Visual search (pp. 3-19). London: Taylor & Francis.
21. Eriksen, C. W., & Eriksen, B. A. (1979). Target redundancy in visual search: Do repetitions of the target within the display impair processing? Perception & Psychophysics, 26, 195-205.
22. Eriksen, C. W., & Hoffman, J. E. (1973). The extent processing of noise elements during selective encoding from visual displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 14, 155-160.
23. Eriksen, C. W., & Rohrbaugh, J. W. (1970). Some factors determining efficiency of selective attention. American Journal of Psychology, 83, 330-342.
24. Eriksen, C. W., & Yeh, Y.-Y. (1985). Allocation of attention in the visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 583-597.
25. Fienberg, S. (1980). The analysis of cross-classified categorical data (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. Flowers, J. H., & Wilcox, N. (1982). The effect of flanking context on visual classification: The joint contribution of interactions at different processing levels. Perception & Psychophysics, 32, 581-591.
27. Fox, R., & Patterson, R. (1981). Depth separation and lateral interference. Perception & Psychophysics, 30, 513-520.
28. Goolkasian, P., & Garver, D. K. (1995). Evidence for processing letters at uncued locations. American Journal of Psychology, 8, 235-253.
29. Grizzle, J. E., Starmer, C. F., & Koch, G. G. (1969). Analysis of categorical data by linear models. Biometrics, 25, 489-504.
30. Jonides, J. (1983). Further toward a model of the mind's eye's movement. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 21, 247-250.
31. Juettner, M., & Roehler, R. (1993). Lateral information transfer across saccadic eye movements. Perception & Psychophysics, 53, 210-220.
32. Miller, J. (1991). The flanker compatibility effects as a function of visual angle, attentional focus, visual transients, and perceptual load: A search for boundary conditions. Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 270-288.
33. Müller, J. J., & Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1989). Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: Time course of activation and resistance to interruption. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 315-330.
34. Paap, K. R., Newsome, S. L., & Noel, R. W. (1984). Word shape's in poor shape for the race to the lexicon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and performance, 10, 413-428.
35. Pashler, H., & Badgio, P. C. (1985). Visual attention and stimulus identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 105-121.
36. Schmidt, P. A., & Dark, V. J. (1998). Attentional processing of "unattended" flankers: Evidence for a failure of selective attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 227-238.
37. Schmidt, P. A., & Dark, V. J. (in press). Flanker recall and the flanker validity effect may reflect different attentional processes. Perception & Psychophysics.
38. Shiffrin, R. M., Diller, D. E., & Cohen, A. (1996). Processing visual information in an unattended location. In M. Coles, G. Logan, & A. Kramer (Eds.), Converging operations in the study of visual selective attention. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
39. Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127-190.
40. Thompson, M. C., & Massaro, D. W. (1973). Visual information and redundancy in reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 98, 49-54.
41. Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
42. Yantis, S., & Johnston, J. C. (1990). On the locus of visual selection: Evidence from focused attention tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 135-149.