Abstract
In univariate classification tasks, subjects sort stimuli on the basis of the only attribute that varies. In orthogonal classification tasks, often calledfiltering tasks, there additionally are trial-to-trial variations in irrelevant attributes that the subjects are instructed to ignore. Performance is generally slower in filtering tasks than in univariate control tasks. We investigated this slowing in experiments of how the range of irrelevant trial-to-trial variation affects responses in pitch/loudness classification tasks. Using two levels of pitch and of loudness as stimuli, Experiment 1 replicated prior work showing that responses are slowed more when the range of the irrelevant dimension is made larger. Also in Experiment 1, sequential analyses showed that response time depends both on sequence and on the stimulus set independent of sequence. Experiments 2 and 3 used several levels on the irrelevant dimension and showed that responses to categorize loudness are slowed more by larger trial-to-trial pitch differences, but only on trials when the response repeats. When the response changes, performance is essentially unaffected by trial-to-trial variation. This interaction supports the conclusion that slowed average performance in orthogonal clairrelevantssification tasks, which is known asGarner interference, is not due to difficulties that subjects have in filtering stimulus attributes. It is due to how subjects process successive stimulus differences. We call for more frequent reports of sequential analyses, because these can reveal information that is not available from data averages.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baird, J. C, Berglund, B., Berglund, U., &Lindberg, S. (1991). Stimulus sequence and the exponent of the power function for loudness.Perceptual & Motor Skills,73, 3–17.
Ben-Artzi, E., &Marks, L. E. (1995). Visual-auditory interaction in speeded classification: Role of stimulus difference.Perception & Psychophysics,57, 1151 -1162.
Bertelson, P. (1961). Sequential redundancy and speed in a serial two-choice responding task.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,13, 90–102.
Bertelson, P. (1963). S-R relationships and reaction time to new versus repeated signals in a serial task.Journal of Experimental Psychology,65,478–484.
Bertelson, P. (1965). Serial choice reaction-time as a function of response versus signal-and-response repetition.Nature,206, 217–218.
Broadbent, D. E. (1971).Decision and stress. New York: Academic Press.
Crowder, R. G. (1989). Imagery for musical timbre.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,15, 472–478.
Dixon, P., &Just, M. A. (1978). Normalization of irrelevant dimensions in stimulus comparisons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,4, 36–46.
Durlach, N., &Braida, L. (1969). Intensity perception I. Preliminary theory of intensity resolution.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,81, 421–427.
Eichelman, W. H. (1970). Stimulus and response repetition effects for naming letters at two response-stimulus intervals.Perception & Psychophysics,7, 94–96
Ells, J. G., &Gotts, G. H. (1977). Serial reaction time as a function of the nature of repeated events.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,3, 234–242.
Farell, B. (1985). “Same”-“different” judgments: A review of current controversies in perceptual comparisons.Psychological Bulletin,98, 419–456.
Felfoldy, G. L. (1974). Repetition effects in choice reaction time to multidimensional stimuli.Perception & Psychophysics,15,453–459.
Fletcher, B. C. (1981). Wholistic and analytic stimulus processing: The development of selective perceptual strategies.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,33A, 167–176.
Fletcher, B. C, &Rabbitt, P. M. (1978). The changing pattern of perceptual analytic strategies and response selection with practice in a two-choice reaction time task.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,30, 417–427.
Garner, W. R. (1962).Uncertainty and structure as psychological concepts. New York: Wiley.
Garner, W. R. (1970). The stimulus in information processing.American Psychologist,25, 350–358.
Garner, W. R. (1974).The processing of information and structure. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.
Garner, W. R. (1978). Aspects of a stimulus: Features, dimensions, and configurations. In E. Rosch & B. B. Lloyd (Eds.),Cognition and categorization (pp. 99–133). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grau, J. W., &Kemler-Nelson, D. G. (1988). The distinction between integral and separable dimensions: Evidence for the integrality of pitch and loudness.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,117,347–370.
Gravetter, F., &Lockhead, G. R. (1973). Criterial range as a frame of reference for stimulus judgment.Psychological Review,80, 203–216.
Hinrichs, J. V., &Krainz, P. L. (1970). Expectancy in choice reaction time: Anticipation of stimulus or response?Journal of Experimental Psychology,85, 330–334.
Hinson, J. M., &Lockhead, G. R. (1986). Range effects in successive discriminations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,12, 270–276.
Holland, M. K., &Lockhead, G. R. (1968). Sequential effects in absolute judgments of loudness.Perception & Psychophysics,3,409–414.
Hyman, R. (1953). Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time.Journal of Experimental Psychology,45, 188–196.
King, M. C., Gruenewald, P., &Lockhead, G. R. (1978). Classifying related stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning & Memory,4, 417–427.
Kornblum, S. (1973). Sequential effects in choice reaction time: A tutorial review. In S. Kornblum (Ed.),Attention and performance IV (pp. 259–288). New York: Academic Press.
Krueger, L. E.. &SHAPIRO, R. G. (1981). Intertriai effects of same-different judgments.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,33A, 241–265.
Li, X., &Smith, A. F. (1992). Unitary classification in a comparison task.Perception & Psychophysics,51, 257–266.
Lockhead, G. R. (1966). Effects of dimensional redundancy on visual discrimination.Journal of Experimental Psychology,72, 95–104.
Lockhead, G. R. (1972). Processing dimensional stimuli: A note.Psychological Review,79, 410–419.
Lockhead, G. R. (1992a). On identifying things: A case for context. In B. Burns (Ed.),Percepts, concepts, and categories: The representation and processing of information (pp. 109–143). New York: Elsevier, North-Holland.
Lockhead, G. R. (1992b). Psychophysical scaling: Judgments of attributes or objects?Behavioral & Brain Sciences,15, 543–601.
Lockhead, G. R., Gruenewald, P., &King, M. [C] (1978). Holistic vs. attribute repetition effects in classifying stimuli.Memory & Cognition,6, 438–445.
Lockhead, G. R., &King, M. C. (1983). A memory model of sequential effects in scaling tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,9,461–473.
Luce, R. D., &Green, D. M. (1978). Two tests of a neural attention hypothesis for auditory psychophysics.Perception & Psychophysics,23,363–371.
Marks, L. E. (1987). On cross-modal similarity: Auditory-visual interactions in speeded discrimination.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,13, 384–394.
Melara, R. D., &Marks, L. E. (1990). Interaction among auditory dimensions: Timbre, pitch, and loudness.Perception & Psychophysics,48,169–178.
Melara, R. D., &Mounts, J. R. W. (1994). Contextual influences on interactive processing: Effects of discriminability, quantity, and uncertainty.Perception & Psychophysics,56, 73–90.
Melara, R. D., &O’Brien, T. P. (1987). Interaction between synesthetically corresponding dimensions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,116, 323–336.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information.Psychological Review,63, 81–97.
Parducci, A. (1965). Category judgment: A range-frequency model.Psychological Review,72, 407–418.
Parducci, A., &Perrett, L. F. (1971). Category rating scales: Effects of relative spacing and frequency of stimulus values.Journal of Experimental Psychology,89, 427–452.
Pashler, H., &Baylis, G. (1991). Procedural learning: 2. Intertrial repetition effects in speeded choice tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 33–48.
Pollack, I. (1953). The information of elementary auditory displays. II.Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,24, 745–749.
Pomerantz, J. R. (1991). The structure of visual configurations: Stimulus versus subject contributions. In G. R. Lockhead & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.),The perception of structure (pp. 195–210). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Pomerantz, J. R., &Garner, W. R. (1973). Stimulus configuration in selective attention tasks.Perception & Psychophysics,14, 565–569.
Pomerantz, J. R., Pristach, E. A., &Carson, C. E. (1989). Attention and object perception. In B. Shepp & S. Ballesteros (Eds.),Object perception: Structure and process (pp. 53–89). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rabbitt, P. M. (1968). Repetition effects and signal classification strategies in serial choice-response tasks.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,20, 232–240.
Shepard, R. N. (1964). Attention and the metric structure of the stimulus space.Journal of Mathematical Psychology,1, 54–87.
Smith, E. E., Chase, W. G., &Smith, P. G. (1973). Stimulus and response repetition effects in retrieval from short-term memory: Trace decay and memory search.Journal of Experimental Psychology,98, 413–422.
Smith, E. E., &Medin, D. L. (1981).Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Smith, M. C. (1968). Repetition effect and short-term memory.Journal of Experimental Psychology,77, 435–439.
Staddon, J. E. R., King, M. C, &Lockhead, G. R. (1977). On sequential effects in absolute judgment experiments.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,6, 290–301.
Stevens, S. S. (1975).Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual, neural, and social prospects (G. Stevens, Ed.). New York: Wiley.
St. James, J. D., &Eriksen, C. W. (1991). Response competition produces a “fast same effect” in same-different judgments. In G. R. Lockhead & J. R. Pomerantz (Eds.),The perception of structure (pp. 157–168). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Teghtsoonian, R. (1973). Range effects in psychophysical scaling and a revision of Stevens’ law.American Journal of Psychology,86, 3–27.
Van Leeuwen, C, &Bakker, L. (1995). Stroop can occur without Garner interference: Strategic and mandatory influences in multidimensional stimuli.Perception & Psychophysics,57, 379–392.
Williams, J. A. (1966). Sequential effects in disjunctive reaction time: Implications for decision models.Journal of Experimental Psychology,71, 665–666.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was partially supported by a National Science Foundation fellowship to S.A.H.
—Accepted by previous editor, Myron L. Braunstein
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Huettel, S.A., Lockhead, G.R. Range effects of an irrelevant dimension on classification. Perception & Psychophysics 61, 1624–1645 (1999). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213123
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213123