On the relation between type of arrays and type of errors in partial-report bar-probe studies

Hagenaar, R.; Heijden, A. H. C. van der

doi:10.1016/0001-6918(94)e0062-k

Cited by 7 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A visual cue (e.g., a bar or an arrow) is used to indicate the target letter. The cue is presented just before, during, or at various intervals after exposure of the letter display.From these partial-report bar-probe studies, a consistent pattern of results has emerged (see, e.g., Averbach & Coriell, 1961;Hagenaar & van der Heijden, 1995;Mewhort, Campbell, Marchetti, & Campbell, 1981;Mewhort, Marchetti, & Campbell, 1982;Townsend, 1973). The first robust finding is that accuracy of report depends on the moment of appearance of the cue.…”

mentioning

confidence: 77%

“…The first, rather trivial, reason is that, in conventional bar-probe experiments, many sources oferrors contribute to the total pattern of results (see, e.g., Hagenaar & van der Heijden, 1995;Mewhort, 1987;Mewhort et aI., 1988). In such experiments, therefore, evidence for central near-location errors resulting from apparent movement of the cue may be obscured by errors induced by other factors.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…An item error refers to report of a letter that was not in the array; a location error involves report of a letter that was in the array but not in the cued position. The outcome of studies using this error analysis was surprising: The great majority of errors appeared to be location errors, whereas the number of item errors was very modest (see, e.g., Hagenaar & van der Heijden, 1995;Hagenzieker, van der Heijden, & Hagenaar, 1990;Mewhort et al, 1981;Mewhort et al, 1982;Townsend, 1973). Moreover, the location errors nearly mirrored the pattern of correct reports: A strong increase with cue delay and an M-shaped serial position curve were found.…”

mentioning

confidence: 89%

“…For each location error, it was established whether, relative to the position of the target, the erroneous response letter came from a position toward the center or toward the periphery of the array. Because in conventional partial-report bar-probe experiments many different factors contribute to the outcome (see, e.g., Hagenaar & van der Heijden, 1995;Mewhort, 1987; Mewhort et aI., 1988;van der Heijden, 1992), we used the simplified version introduced by Mewhort and Campbell (1978). In this version, instead of variable letter arrays, one invariant digit array (1234567) is used as the stimulus.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Only on a minority of trials did subjects report a letter that was further removed from the target (i.e., far-location errors; see, e.g., Hagenaar & van der Heijden, 1995;Hagenzieker et al, 1990;Mewhort et al, 1981).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Location errors in partial-report bar-probe experiments: In search of the origin of cue-alignment problems

Hagenaar

Heijden

1997

Memory & Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In studies using Averbach and Coriell's (1961) partial-report bar-probe paradigm with linear arrays, most errors involve the naming of an item that was in the display but in a position other than the cued one. Up to now, there is no general agreement on the origin of these location errors. Point of departure in this paper is that part of the location errors arises from inappropriate application of the cue. It is tested whether this originates from problems to perceive the position of the cue ("cuedisplacement hypothesis") or from confusion about the order of the items in the array ("item-order hypothesis"). The results of two bar-probe experiments are reported. A novel, crucial, finding in both experiments is that, among the location errors, there was a preponderance of response letters that came from the central side of the cued item. In the second experiment, this was observed not only in the usual postcue conditions but also when the cue preceded the array. These results positively corroborate the cue-displacement hypothesis and do not support the item-order hypothesis: The cue tends to be perceived more toward the center of the visual field than it actually is exposed-that is, there is a central drift of the cue.The partial-report technique is a powerful tool in the study of selective attention and memory processes in vision. In this technique, subjects are briefly exposed to a configuration of letters and a cue that specifies which part of the display is to be reported. In the variety introduced by Averbach and Coriell (1961 )-the partialreport bar-probe paradigm-one or several rows of letters are displayed, and only one letter has to be named. A visual cue (e.g., a bar or an arrow) is used to indicate the target letter. The cue is presented just before, during, or at various intervals after exposure of the letter display.From these partial-report bar-probe studies, a consistent pattern of results has emerged (see, e.g., Averbach & Coriell, 1961;Hagenaar & van der Heijden, 1995;Mewhort, Campbell, Marchetti, & Campbell, 1981;Mewhort, Marchetti, & Campbell, 1982;Townsend, 1973). The first robust finding is that accuracy of report depends on the moment of appearance of the cue. If the cue just precedes the letter display or is shown simultaneously, accuracy is quite high (approximately 75% correct). If the cue follows the display immediately, accuracy of report is still high. Accuracy decreases gradually when the cue is further delayed. At a delay of about 250 msec after display termination, accuracy reaches an asymptotic level ofabout 35% correct. The second robust finding is that accuracy is higher for letters displayed at the center and the ends of the rowes) than for letters shown between the center and Correspondence should be addressed to A. H. C. van der Heijden, Unit of Experimental and Theoretical Psychology, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9555, 2300 RB Leiden, The Netherlands (e-mail: heijden@ rulfsw.leidenuniv.nl ).end positions: The percentage correct reports are distributed in the shape of a "W" acro...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 77%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 89%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Location errors in partial-report bar-probe experiments: In search of the origin of cue-alignment problems

Hagenaar

Heijden

1997

Memory & Cognition

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

The cognitive deficits responsible for developmental dyslexia: Review of evidence for a selective visual attentional disorder

2004

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is strong converging evidence suggesting that developmental dyslexia stems from a phonological processing deficit. However, this hypothesis has been challenged by the widely admitted heterogeneity of the dyslexic population, and by several reports of dyslexic individuals with no apparent phonological deficit. In this paper, we discuss the hypothesis that a phonological deficit may not be the only core deficit in developmental dyslexia and critically examine several alternative proposals. To establish that a given cognitive deficit is causally related to dyslexia, at least two conditions need to be fulfilled. First, the hypothesized deficit needs to be associated with developmental dyslexia independently of additional phonological deficits. Second, the hypothesized deficit must predict reading ability, on both empirical and theoretical grounds. While most current hypotheses fail to fulfil these criteria, we argue that the visual attentional deficit hypothesis does. Recent studies providing evidence for the independence of phonological and visual attentional deficits in developmental dyslexia are reviewed together with empirical data showing that phonological and visual attentional processing skills contribute independently to reading performance. A theoretical model of reading is outlined in support of a causal link between a visual attentional disorder and a failure in reading acquisition.

show abstract

Sources of position-perception error for small isolated targets

Heijden

Geest

Leeuw

et al. 1999

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has often been reported that, in the presence of static reference stimuli, briefly presented visual targets are perceived as being closer to the fixation point than they actually are. The first purpose of the present study was to investigate whether the same phenomenon can be demonstrated in a situation without static reference stimuli. Experiment 1, with position naming as the task, showed that such a central shift is also observed under these conditions. This finding is of importance because it completes an explanation for central near-location errors in the partial-report bar-probe task. The second purpose of the present study was to provide an explanation for these central shifts. For this explanation information about the exact size of the central shift is required. In Exps. 2, 3, and 4, with cursor setting as the task, it was attempted to assess more precisely the size of the central shifts. These experiments revealed that two different factors determine the results in cursor setting tasks; a factor "target position" and a factor "cursor position." Experiment 5 showed that it is the point of fixation, not the fixation point, that serves, at least in part, as the reference point in this type of task. All the findings together allow us to conclude that the target positions are underestimated by about 10%. From vision research it is known that saccadic eye movements, performed for bringing a target in the fovea, also show an undershoot of about 10%. It is therefore concluded that the system in charge of saccadic eye movements also provides the metric in visual space within a single eye fixation.

show abstract

On the relation between type of arrays and type of errors in partial-report bar-probe studies

Cited by 7 publications

References 17 publications

Location errors in partial-report bar-probe experiments: In search of the origin of cue-alignment problems

Location errors in partial-report bar-probe experiments: In search of the origin of cue-alignment problems

The cognitive deficits responsible for developmental dyslexia: Review of evidence for a selective visual attentional disorder

Sources of position-perception error for small isolated targets

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About