Recognition of Non-Studied Visual Depictions of Aircraft: Improvement by Distributed Presentation

Abstract

This experiment examined the effects of three methods of presentation, one massed and two distributed, on recognition of complex visual stimuli (military aircraft). Also examined was whether the effects of these methods differ as a function of the view at test (same or different from the studied view). In the massed presentation, aircraft were exposed once for eight seconds with each exposure separated by a blank interval of 20 seconds. In the successive distributed condition, each target aircraft was presented four times in a row for two seconds with each exposure separated by blank intervals of five seconds. In the random distributed condition, the aircraft were presented for the same on-off time intervals as the successive distributed condition, but the sequence of the study list was random. Results showed that recognition performance, as assessed by measures of hits, false alarms, and discrimination accuracy was significantly better when the same view was given at study and at test versus a different view. While presentation method did not produce an effect by itself, it did interact with test view. With a different view at test, distributed presentation showed a small, but significant, improvement in recognition performance compared to massed presentation. These results are discussed with regard to the high likelihood that most real-word visual stimuli are seen in a different views at subsequent exposures. Distributed presentation may be a useful way to prepare individuals for a different view at a later time.

Learning Complex Visual Stimuli: Effects of Spaced Presentation and Rehearsal on Aircraft Recognition

“…FACR is similar except it is formed with respect to the distractor scores as opposed to the target scores. The DISCRIM score is the difference between HM and FACR (Wogdter et al, 1992; Jarrard and Wogalter, 1992). d' and A' are measures of discrimination (or sensitivity) commonly used in signal detection research (Elliot, 1964; Pollack and Norman, 1964).…”