Looking time: The effects of stimulus complexity and familiarity

Abstract

One measure of visual exploration is free looking time: the time S spends looking at a stimulus when he can look at it for as long as he wishes. A number of studies indicate that novel stimuli elicit longer looking responses than familiar stimuli (Berlyne, 1958; MeReynolds, 1963). In these studies, it has been shown that familiarizing S with a stimulus results in a loss in the capacity of that stimulus to elicit a looking response, as indicated by a decrease in free looking time. Welker (1954) and Butler (1957), working wtth chtmpanzees and monkeys, respectively, have shown that after the passage of time, a familiarized stimulus can recover at least some of the lost capacity to elicit a looking response. However, two recent experiments have failed to demonstrate a similar effect in humans (Cantor & Cantor, 1964 a, b). Since, in these studies, relatively large amounts of familiarization, on simple line drawings or cartoons, were administered to preschool children, it is possible that with less familiarization and greater stimulus complexity, a recovery effect in adult humans can be demonstrated. The present study investigated the effects of three variables on free looking time: (1) stimulus complexity, (2) stimulus familiarity, and, (3) the delay between familiarization and free looking. METHOD SubjectsThe Ss were 90 males and 90 females selected from the introductory psychology course at Michigan State University. The Ss were randomly assigned to six groups; 15 males and 15 females in each group. 142

Effect of novelty on stimulus selection in children

“…These results may be interpreted as providing information about the process of stimulus selection that has not been made available by previous studies in the area (Berlyne, 1958, Leckart, 1966, and Leckart & Wagner, 1967. In these previous studies the dependent variable has been free looking time.…”

“…Studies of this type can be differentiated from more traditional studies of perceptual behavior by their emphasis on the voluntary aspects of visual behavior. Forexample,onegroup of "looking" studies centers aroundthedependentvariable of free looking time, i.e., how long S looks at a stimulus when he is free to look at it for as long as he wishes (Bakan & Leckart, 1965;Brown & Farha, 1966;Day, 1966;Leckart, 1966;McReynolds, 1963;Zamansky, 1958). Experiments in this area seem to be important for at least two reasons: (1) they may reveal elements of the process of attention or stimulus selection,.and, (2) they may provide information about human exploratory behavior thereby aiding in the construction of a theory of motivation.…”

Stimulus familiarity, dogmatism, and the duration of attention

“…One possibility is suggested by Mikol's (1960) The second purpose of this study was to extend the research on the relationship between stimulus familiarity and looking time by using a different technique to manipulate familiarity than has usually been employed. A number of studies have shown that looking time is negatively related to stimulus familiarity (Berlyne, 1958;Cantor & Cantor, 1964a, b;Leckart, 1966;and McReynolds, 1963), familiarity being manipulated by pre-exposing sa to the "familiar" stimuli.…”

Sex differences in the duration of visual attention

“…Recent research has demonstrated that the duration of visual attention depends upon stimulus, environmental, and subject variables. It has, for example, been shown that free looking time (the time S spends viewing a stimulus when he can look at it for as long as he wishes) depends upon stimulus complexity (Berlyne, 1957(Berlyne, , 1958aCantor, Cantor, & Ditrichs, 1963;Leckart & Bakan, 1965), stimulus novelty (Berlyne, 1958a; Cantor & Cantor, 1964a, b;Leckart, 1966), the instructions given S (Brown & Farha, 1966), E's behavior (Martin, 1964), E controlled stimulus presentations (Leckart, Keeling, & Bakan, 1966), and degree of schizophrenic withdrawal (McReynolds, 1963).Other studies indicate that at least some individual differences in attention are due to the interaction between subject and stimulus variables. Interaction effects have, for example, been demonstrated with subject variables of "spontaneous sexual behavior" (Rosenzweig, 1942), sex (Brandt, 1945), homosexuality (Zamansky, 1956), paranoia (Zamansky, 1958), heterosexual interpersonal contact (Christiansen, 1961), and extraversion .…”

“…Recent research has demonstrated that the duration of visual attention depends upon stimulus, environmental, and subject variables. It has, for example, been shown that free looking time (the time S spends viewing a stimulus when he can look at it for as long as he wishes) depends upon stimulus complexity (Berlyne, 1957(Berlyne, , 1958aCantor, Cantor, & Ditrichs, 1963;Leckart & Bakan, 1965), stimulus novelty (Berlyne, 1958a; Cantor & Cantor, 1964a, b;Leckart, 1966), the instructions given S (Brown & Farha, 1966), E's behavior (Martin, 1964), E controlled stimulus presentations (Leckart, Keeling, & Bakan, 1966), and degree of schizophrenic withdrawal (McReynolds, 1963).…”