Abstract
Three contextual factors—(1) the discriminability of stimuli in pitch, (2) the number of stimuli differing in pitch, and (3)the uncertainty regarding which stimuli or tasks would appear—were manipulated as subjects performed speeded loudness classifications in each of six experiments. The magnitude of Garner interference and effects of congruity were used to gauge the degree of interactive processing. Enhancing pitch discriminability caused monotonic increases in interference and congruity. Stimulus-task uncertainty mediated the changes in Garner interference wrought by increased discriminability. Uncertainty also caused a surprising shift in congruity from strongly positive to strongly negative as uncertainty grew. Increasing stimulus quantity lowered interference, but had inconsistent effects on congruity. Regression analyses suggested that, collectively, these three contextual variables underlie most failures of selective attention in speeded classification.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Algom, D., &Marks, L. E. (1990). Range and regression, loudness scales and loudness processing: Toward a context-bound psychophysics.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,16, 706–721.
Ashby, F. G., &Townsend, J. T. (1986). Varieties of perceptual independence.Psychological Review,93, 154–179.
Carvellas, T., &Schneider, B. (1972). Direct estimation of multidimensional tonal dissimilarity.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,51, 1839–1848.
Chipman, S. F., &Carey, S. (1975). Anatomy of a stimulus domain: The relation between multidimensional and unidimensional scaling of noise bands.Perception & Psychophysics,17, 417–424.
Demany, L. (1983). Speeded discrimination of frequency and intensity differences.Proceedings of the 11th International Congress on Acoustics,3, 107–110.
Durlach, N. I., &Braida, L. D. (1969). Intensity perception: I. Preliminary theory of intensity resolution.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,46, 372–383.
Eriksen, C. W., O’Hara, W. P., &Eriksen, B. (1982). Response competition insame-different judgments.Perception & Psychophysics,32, 261–270.
Felfoldy, G. L. (1974). Repetition effects in choice reaction time to multidimensional stimuli.Perception & Psychophysics,15, 453–459.
Foard, C. F., &Kemler Nelson, D. G. (1984). Holistic and analytic modes of processing: The multiple determinants of perceptual analysis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,113, 94–111.
Garner, W. R. (1974).The processing of information and structure. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.
Gravetter, F., &Lockhead, G. R. (1973). Criterial range as a frame of reference for stimulus judgment.Psychological Review,80, 203–216.
Green, D. M., &Swets, J. A. (1966).Signal detection theory and Psychophysics. New York: Wiley.
Helson, H. (1964).Adaptation-level theory: An experimental and systematic approach to behavior. New York: Harper & Row.
Holland, M. K., &Lockhead, G. R. (1968). Sequential effects in absolute judgments of loudness.Perception & Psychophysics,3, 409–414.
Link, S. W. (1992).The wave theory of difference and similarity. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lockhead, G. R. (1992). Psychophysical scaling: Judgments of attributes or objects?Behaviorial & Brain Sciences,15, 543–601.
MacLeod, C. M. (1991). Half a century of research on the Stroop effect: An integrative review.Psychological Bulletin,109, 163–203.
Maddox, W. T. (1992). Perceptual and decisional separability. In F. G. Ashby (Ed.),Multidimensional models of perception and cognition (pp. 147–180). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Marks, L. E. (1988). Magnitude estimation and sensory matching.Perception & Psychophysics,43, 511–525.
Marks, L. E. (1992). The slippery context effect in psychophysics: Intensive, extensive, and qualitative continua.Perception & Psychophysics,51, 187–198.
Marks, L. E., &Warner, E. (1991).Slippery context effects and critical bands.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,17, 986–996.
Melara, R. D., &Marks, L. E. (199Oa). HARD and SOFT interacting dimensions: Differential effects of dual context on classification.Perception & Psychophysics,47, 307–325.
Melara, R. D., &Marks, L. E. (1990b). Perceptual primacy of dimensions: Support for a model of dimensional interaction.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,16, 398–414.
Melara, R. D., Marks, L. E., &Lesko, K. E. (1992). Optional processes in similarity judgments.Perception & Psychophysics,51, 123–133.
Pomerantz, J. R. (1986). Visual form perception: An overview. In E. C. Schwab & H. C. Nusbaum (Eds.),Pattern recognition by humans and machines: Visual perception (pp. 1–30). New York: Academic Press.
Redding, G. M., &Tharp, D. A. (1981). Processing line location and orientation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,7, 115–129.
Schneider, B., &Parker, S. (1990).Does stimulus context affect loudness or only loudness judgments?Perception & Psychophysics,48, 409–418.
Smith, J. D., &Kemler Nelson, D. G. (1984). Overall similarity in adults’ classification: The child in all of us.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,113, 137–159.
Ward, L. M., &Lockhead, G. R. (1971). Response system processes in absolute judgment.Perception & Psychophysics,9, 73–78.
Wright, R. D. (1986). Amiga 1000 hardware timing and reaction-time key interfacing.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,18, 463–465.
Zagorski, M. (1975). Perceptual independence of pitch and loudness in a signal detection experiment: A processing model for 2ATFC (21FC) experiments.Perception & Psychophysics,17, 525–531.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by National Institutes of Health Grant NS28617to R.D.M.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Melara, R.D., Mounts, J.R.W. Contextual influences on interactive processing: Effects of discriminability, quantity, and uncertainty. Perception & Psychophysics 56, 73–90 (1994). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211692
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211692