Literature DB >> 2011454

Same-different judgments of multiletter strings: insensitivity to positional bias and spacing.

R W Proctor1, A F Healy, T Van Zandt.   

Abstract

Several recent studies of multiletter matching have included pairs of strings that have the same letters in different positions (rearranged pairs). The task can be defined such that these rearranged pairs are correctly classified as different (i.e., subjects respond "same" only if the strings have the same letters in the same positions--the order task) or as same (i.e., subjects respond "same" if the strings have the same letters regardless of their positions--the item task). The order task produces left-to-right serial-position effects, whereas the item task produces U-shaped serial-position effects. Because these differences suggest that subjects may be able to exert strategic control over the comparison process, two sets of experiments were designed to test whether or not subjects can change the relative weightings devoted to the respective serial positions. In Experiments 1 and 2, the probability that a mismatch occurred in the different positions was manipulated. In Experiments 3 and 4, the physical spacing between letters, as well as whether or not the spaces were filled with neutral noise characters, was varied. None of the manipulations had much influence on the serial-position effects. Thus, the distinct serial-position effects for the order and item tasks apparently are mandatory and not due to any voluntary comparison strategy.

Mesh:

Year:  1991        PMID: 2011454     DOI: 10.3758/bf03211617

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 0031-5117


  15 in total

1.  Order-relevant and order-irrelevant decision rules in multiletter matching.

Authors:  R W Proctor; A F Healy
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1985-07       Impact factor: 3.051

2.  Instructional and probability manipulations of bias in multiletter matching.

Authors:  R W Proctor; D J Weeks
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1989-01

3.  The familiarity effect for single-letter pairs.

Authors:  B A Ambler; J D Proctor
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1976-05       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Evidence that the same-different disparity in letter matching is not attributable to response bias.

Authors:  R W Proctor; K V Rao
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1983-07

5.  Order information in multiple-element comparison.

Authors:  J S Angiolillo-Bent; L J Rips
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1982-06       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Effect of intermixed foveal and parafoveal presentation on same-different judgments: evidence for a criterion-inertia model.

Authors:  L E Krueger
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1985-03

7.  A theory of perceptual matching.

Authors:  L E Krueger
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1978-07       Impact factor: 8.934

8.  The effects of objective and perceived size properties on visual form matching.

Authors:  H D Watson
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1981-12

9.  Speed and accuracy of same and different responses in perceptual matching.

Authors:  R Ratcliff; M J Hacker
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1981-09

10.  Response competition effects in same-different judgments.

Authors:  C W Eriksen; W P O'Hara; B Eriksen
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1982-09
View more
  2 in total

1.  Letter-position coding in random constant arrays.

Authors:  F Peressotti; J Grainger
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1995-08

Review 2.  Self-terminating versus exhaustive processes in rapid visual and memory search: an evaluative review.

Authors:  T Van Zandt; J T Townsend
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1993-05
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.