Abstract
In three experiments, the extent to which the processing of a visual stimulus profits from equal processing demands of a preceding stimulus was examined. Subjects identified two subsequently presented digits (S1 and S2) that were either intact or degraded by noise, yielding four combinations of stimulus quality, In Experiments 1 and 2, S1 and S2 differed with respect to the values of the digits, so that stimulus quality was the only dimension of possible agreement. The results revealed a faster response to S2 when the stimulus pairs were homogeneous (both intact or both degraded stimuli) than when they were not homogeneous (degraded-intact pairs and intactdegraded pairs, respectively), The occurrence of equal values of S1 and S2 (Experiment 3) tended to magnify thishomogeneous-stimulus effect, but was not a prerequisite for its occurrence, Relative to conditions considered to be neutral, the homogeneous-stimulus effect proved to be due to deviant behavior following the processing of a degraded S1. The suggestion that this reflects the involvement of controlled processing is discussed.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Anderson, J. R. (1983).The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bamber, D. (1969). Reaction times and error rates for “same”-“different” judgments of multidimensional stimuli.Perception & Psychophysics,6, 169–174.
Farell, B. (1985). “Same”-“different” judgements: A review of current controversies in perceptual comparisons.Psychological Review,98, 419–456.
Hansen, W., &Sanders, A. F. (1988). On the output of encoding during stimulus fixation.Acta Psychologica,69, 95–107.
Houtmans, M. J. M., &Sanders, A. F. (1983). Is information acquisition during large saccades possible?Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,21, 127–130.
Jonides, J., &Mack, R. (1984). On the cost and benefit of cost and benefit.Psychological Bulletin,96, 29–44.
Kolers, P. A. (1976). Reading a year later.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,2, 554–565.
Kolers, P. A., &Roediger, H. L., III (1984). Procedures of mind.Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior,23, 425–449.
Krueger, L. E. (1978). A theory of perceptual matching.Psychological Review,85, 278–304.
Krueger, L. E. (1983). Probing Proctor’s priming principle: The effect of simultaneous and sequential presentation on “same”-“different” judgements.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning. Memory. & Cognition.9, 511–523.
Krueger, L. E., &Shapiro, R. G. (1981a). Intertrial effects of same-different judgements.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,33A, 241–265.
Krueger, L. E., &Shapiro, R. G. (1981b). A reformulation of Proctor’s unified theory for matching-task phenomena.Psychological Review,88, 573–581.
Laberge, D., &Samuels, S. J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading.Cognitive Psychology,6. 293–323.
Logan, G. D. (1978). Attention in character-classification tasks: Evidence for the automaticity of component stages.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General.107, 32–63.
Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization,Psychological Review,95. 492–527.
Nickerson, R. S. (1975). Effects of correlated and uncorrelated noise on visual pattern matching. In P. M. A, Rabbit & S. Dornic (Eds.).Attention and performance V (pp. 655–668). New York: Academic Press.
Niemi, P., (1979). Stimulus intensity effects on auditory and visual reaction processes.Acta Psychologica.43, 299–312.
Posner, M. I. (1978),Chronometric explorations of mind. Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.
Posner, M. I., &Snyder, C. R. R. (1975a). Attention and cognitive control. In R. L. Solso (Ed.),Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium (pp. 55–85). Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.
Posner, M. I., &Snyder, C. R. R. (1975b). Facilitation and inhibition in the processing of signals. In P. M. A. Rabbit & S. Dornic (Eds.),Attention and performance V (pp. 669–682). New York: Academic Press,
Proctor, R. W. (1981). A unified theory for matching-task phenomena.Psychological Review,88, 291–326.
Proctor, R. W., &Rao, K. V. (1983), Reinstating the original principles of Proctor’s unified theory of matching-task phenomena: An evaluation of Krueger and Shapiro’s reformulation.Psychological Review,90, 21–37.
Roediger, H, L., Ill, &Blaxton, T. A. (1987). Effects of varying modality. surface features, and retention interval on priming in word-fragment completion.Memory & Cognition,15, 379–388.
Sanders, A. F., (1963),The selective process in the functional visual field. Assen: van Gorcum.
Sanders, A. F. (1977), Structural and functional aspects of the reaction process. In S. Dornic (Ed.),Attention and performance VI (pp. 325). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sanders, A. F. (1980). Stage analysis of reaction processes. In G. E. Stelmach & J. Requin (Eds.),Tutorials in motor behavior (pp. 331–354), Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Sanders, A. F., &Rath, A. (1991). Perceptual processing and speedaccuracy trade-off.Acta Psychologica,77, 275–291.
Van Der Molen, M.W. &Keuss, P. J. G. (1981). Response selection and the processing of auditory intensity.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,33A, 177–184.
Van Duren, L., &Sanders, A. F. (1988). On the robustness of the additive factors stage structure in blocked and mixed choice reaction designs.Acta Psvchologica,69, 83–94.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
—Accepted by previous editor, Margaret Jean Intons-Peterson
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Los, S.A. Procedural differences in processing intact and degraded stimuli. Memory & Cognition 22, 145–156 (1994). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208886
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03208886