Effects of number and strength of competing solutions on the perceptual interference effect

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 22-31

  Wang, Quanhong ^b   Reinitz, Mark Tippens ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF PUGET SOUND   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; PHYSIOLOGY; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; VISION;

HUMANS; PROBLEM SOLVING; PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORY; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 85047683391     PISSN: 00961523     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.27.1.22     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Blake, R. R., & Vanderplas, J. M. (1950). The effect of prerecognition hypotheses on veridical recognition thresholds in auditory perception. Journal of Personality, 19, 95-115.
2. Bruner, J. S., & Potter, M. C. (1964, April 24). Interference in visual recognition. Science, 144, 424-425.
3. Carpenter, G. A., & Grossberg, S. (1986). Adaptive resonance theory: Stable self-organization of neural recognition codes in response to arbitrary lists of input patterns. In Program of the Eighth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 45-62). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
4. Dagenbach, D., Carr, T. H., & Barnhardt, T. M. (1990). Inhibitory semantic priming of lexical decisions due to failure to retrieve weakly activated codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 328-340.
5. Feustel, R. C., Shiffrin, R. M., & Salasoo, A. (1983). Episodic and lexical contributions to the repetition effect in word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 112, 309-346.
6. Frederiksen, J. R. (1967). Cognitive factors in the recognition of ambiguous auditory and visual stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Monographs, 7(1, Pt. 2), 1-17.
7. Frederiksen, J. R. (1969). Response preservation in auditory word recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79, 48-55.
8. Galloway, D. W. (1946). An experimental investigation of structural lag in perception [Abstract]. American Psychologist, 1, 450.
9. Grossberg, S. (1976). Adaptive pattern classification and universal recoding: II. Feedback, expectation, olfaction, and illusion. Biological Cybernetics, 23, 187-202.
10. Grossberg, S. (1980). How does a brain build a cognitive code? Psychological Review, 87, 1-51.
11. Kucera, H., & Francis, W. N. (1967). Computational analysis of present day American English. Providence, RI: Brown University Press.
12. Loftus, G. L., & Masson, M. E. J. (1994). Using confidence intervals in within-subjects designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 476-490.
13. Luo, C. R., & Snodgrass, J. G. (1994). Competitive activation model of perceptual interference in picture and word identification. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 20, 50-60.
14. McClelland, J. C., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375-407.
15. Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary. (1995). In Britannica online (Version 1.3). Chicago: Britannica Online.
16. Milliken, B., Joordens, S., Merikle, P. M., & Seiffert, A. E. (1998). Selective attention: A reevaluation of the implications of negative priming. Psychological Review, 105, 203-229.
17. Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality. San Francisco: Freeman.
18. Peynircioglu, Z. F. (1987). Inhibition through fragment cuing with primed items. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 13, 569-572.
19. Peynircioglu, Z. F., & Watkins, M. J. (1986). Cue depreciation: When word fragment completion is undermined by prior exposure to lesser fragments. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 426-431.
20. Snodgrass, J. G., & Hirshman, E. (1991). Theoretical explorations of the Bruner-Potter (1964) interference effect. Journal of Memory and Language, 30, 273-293.
21. Wang, Q. (1999). [Effects of initial fragment size on strength of perceptual interference]. Unpublished raw data.