2010
DOI: 10.1167/9.8.207
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Between-object superiority in divided attention

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
1

Relationship

0
1

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1 publication
(1 citation statement)
references
References 0 publications
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This same-object cost is common to divided-attention tasks in which participants are asked to judge between two highly similar or identical targets (Chen & Huang, 2015) and reflects greater binding of features from distinct, albeit neighboring, objects than for features from the same object (Davis & Holmes, 2005). Indeed, it is possible that participants are motivated to attend strictly to the objects when targets and objects are strongly integrated (i.e., when the targets are part 'of' the objects), and thus, when completing the same-different task, they are prone to adopting a strategy whereby they compare whole objects rather than distinct features of those objects (Neill, Li, Seror, & O'Connor, 2009). Consequently, when the targets appear within different objects, participants may base their response on whether or not the two objects match.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This same-object cost is common to divided-attention tasks in which participants are asked to judge between two highly similar or identical targets (Chen & Huang, 2015) and reflects greater binding of features from distinct, albeit neighboring, objects than for features from the same object (Davis & Holmes, 2005). Indeed, it is possible that participants are motivated to attend strictly to the objects when targets and objects are strongly integrated (i.e., when the targets are part 'of' the objects), and thus, when completing the same-different task, they are prone to adopting a strategy whereby they compare whole objects rather than distinct features of those objects (Neill, Li, Seror, & O'Connor, 2009). Consequently, when the targets appear within different objects, participants may base their response on whether or not the two objects match.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%