Literature DB >> 24203414

Perceptual inhibition of expected inputs: The key that opens closed minds.

W A Johnston1, K J Hawley.   

Abstract

The mind appears to be biased simultaneously toward both expected and unexpected inputs. For example, familiar scenes are usually perceived more readily than novel scenes, indicating the former bias, but a single novel object sometimes pops out from a familiar field, indicating the latter bias. A diverse literature and a computational model converge on the following resolution to this paradox: The former bias is conceptually driven and actually suppresses data-driven processing of expected inputs; in turn, this suppression disinhibits data-driven processing of unexpected inputs, yielding the latter bias. Evidence for suppressed data-driven processing of expected inputs is drawn from studies of perceptual habituation, semantic satiation, memory inhibition, inhibition of return, repetition blindness, primed inhibition, the word-inferiority effect, registration without learning, and both expert- and schema-based inhibitory effects. Evidence for enhanced data-driven processing of unexpected inputs is drawn from studies of the orienting response, mismatch negativity, memory facilitation, both expert- and schema-based facilitatory effects, and perceptual popout. The model, calledmismatch theory, incorporates inhibitory and facilitatory perceptual dynamics and is found to simulate the opposing biases. Implications of mismatch theory for perceptual phenomenology, dynamic systems theory, mental health, and individual differences are also discussed.

Entities:  

Year:  1994        PMID: 24203414     DOI: 10.3758/BF03200761

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  41 in total

1.  Effects of similarity and repetition on memory: registration without learning?

Authors:  D L Hintzman; T Curran; B Oppy
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  1992-07       Impact factor: 3.051

2.  Higher nervous functions; the orienting reflex.

Authors:  E N SOKOLOV
Journal:  Annu Rev Physiol       Date:  1963       Impact factor: 19.318

3.  Selection of moving and static objects for the control of spatially directed action.

Authors:  S P Tipper; J C Brehaut; J Driver
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1990-08       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Self-perpetuating development of encoding biases.

Authors:  P Lewicki; T Hill; I Sasaki
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1989-12

5.  An examination of trace storage in free recall.

Authors:  N J Slamecka
Journal:  J Exp Psychol       Date:  1968-04

6.  A case study of anomaly detection: shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment.

Authors:  S B Barton; A J Sanford
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1993-07

7.  Stimulus-driven attentional capture and attentional control settings.

Authors:  S Yantis
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Novel popout with nonsense strings: effects of predictability of string length and spatial location.

Authors:  K J Hawley; W A Johnston; J M Farnham
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1994-03

9.  Investigating the boundaries of reading units: letter detection in misspelled words.

Authors:  A F Healy; A Drewnowski
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1983-06       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing.

Authors:  G R Loftus; N H Mackworth
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1978-11       Impact factor: 3.332

View more
  10 in total

1.  Testing a conceptual locus for the inconsistent object change detection advantage in real-world scenes.

Authors:  Andrew Hollingworth; John M Henderson
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2003-09

2.  The word frequency effect for recognition memory and the elevated-attention hypothesis.

Authors:  Kenneth J Malmberg; Thomas O Nelson
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2003-01

3.  The extraction of phrase structure during reading: Evidence from letter detection errors.

Authors:  A Koriat; S N Greenberg
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1994-09

4.  Novel popout without novelty.

Authors:  K A Diliberto; J Altarriba; W T Neill
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1998-05

5.  The visual search analogue of latent inhibition: implications for theories of irrelevant stimulus processing in normal and schizophrenic groups.

Authors:  R E Lubow; Oren Kaplan
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2005-04

6.  When encoding fails: instructions, feedback, and registration without learning.

Authors:  D L Hintzman; T Curran
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1995-03

7.  Stereotype Strength and Attentional Bias: Preference for Confirming versus Disconfirming Information Depends on Processing Capacity.

Authors:  Thomas J Allen; Jeffrey W Sherman; Frederica R Conrey; Steven J Stroessner
Journal:  J Exp Soc Psychol       Date:  2009-09-01

8.  The closed-mindedness that wasn't: need for structure and expectancy-inconsistent information.

Authors:  Markus Kemmelmeier
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2015-07-02

9.  Cognitive mechanisms associated with auditory sensory gating.

Authors:  L A Jones; P J Hills; K M Dick; S P Jones; P Bright
Journal:  Brain Cogn       Date:  2015-12-21       Impact factor: 2.310

10.  Stereotype-based priming without stereotype activation: A tale of two priming tasks.

Authors:  Dimitra Tsamadi; Johanna K Falbén; Linn M Persson; Marius Golubickis; Siobhan Caughey; Betül Sahin; C Neil Macrae
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol (Hove)       Date:  2020-07-07       Impact factor: 2.143

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.