Repetition blindness depends on perceptual capture and token individuation failure.

Hochhaus, Larry; Marohn, Kathleen M.

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.17.2.422

Cited by 42 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, the inhibitory effects did not appear to be due to any guessing effects in the three-eld technique. For instance, it has been argued that subjects may be reluctant to say a related target word, especially in the case of the identical condition (see Hochhaus & Marohn, 1991;Park & Kanwisher, 1994). However, that possibility cannot be applied to the present experiment, since all priming conditions were interleaved in the same experiment but only one of them yielded signi cant effects (see Park & Kanwisher, 1994, for a similar argument).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 53%

“…Speci cally, the technique used in the study is the three-eld technique (Humphreys, Besner, & Quinlan, 1988), in which a clearly visible prime (in lower-case letters) is followed by a brie y presented upper-case word which is immediately masked, and the percentage of correct target identi cations is measured. With this technique, when the prime and the target are identical, the magnitude of the inhibition effect relative to an unrelated word condition is rather robust (see Hochhaus & Marohn, 1991;Humphreys et al, 1988;Park & Kanwisher, 1994;Perea, 1993;Perea & Gotor, 1994), which has been considered to be a variety of the repetition blindness effect (Bavelier, Prasada & Segui, 1994;Hochhaus & Marohn, 1991;Park & Kanwisher, 1994).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Orthographic Neighbours are not all Equal: Evidence using an Identification Technique

Perea¹

1998

Language and Cognitive Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 53%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Orthographic Neighbours are not all Equal: Evidence using an Identification Technique

Perea¹

1998

Language and Cognitive Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…A number of studies have failed to replicate Kanwisher's (1987) findings and have shown, instead, that RB is relatively equivalent whether participants report all items or only the final one (Hochhaus & Marohn, 1991;Kanwisher & Potter, 1990;Luo & Caramazza, 1995). There are also conceptual problems with Kanwisher's (1987) claim that the type refractoriness hypothesis cannot accommodate facilitatory repetition effects in the final-word report task.…”

Section: Memory and Reconstruction Accounts Of Rbmentioning

confidence: 85%

Repetition blindness in sentence contexts: Not just an attribution?

Bond¹,

Andrews

2008

Memory & Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Repetition blindness (RB) refers to the failure to report both occurrences of a repeated item in a series of rapidly presented visual stimuli. For instance, the sentence When she spilled the ink there was ink all over, presented word by word at a rate of around 100 msec/word, may be reported as "When she spilled the ink there was all over" (Kanwisher, 1987), even though the sequence is nongrammatical. RB also occurs for repeated items in lists of words and pictures (see Coltheart, 1999, for reviews), but the phenomenon is particularly striking in sentences, where its occurrence generally fails to respect the constraints of coherence or syntax. This has contributed to accounts that locate the phenomenon at the lexical level, rather than at the later stages of memory and recall. In the experiments reported here, novel variations of the standard RB sentence-processing paradigm were used to shed further light on the relative contribution of bottom-up and top-down processes to RB and, more generally, on the role of lexical activation in sentence processing. Kanwisher's (1987) original interpretation of RB drew upon the distinction between types and tokens. Reporting the identity of an item in a stimulus sequence requires not only activation of the existing representation of the item's type representation in memory, but also creation of a token representing the occurrence of that type in the processing episode (Kahneman & Treisman, 1984). For example, the conceptual processing required to build a coherent structure from the words of a sentence requires more than activation of word types in lexical memory; comprehension and recall depend on establishing tokens of these words and the sentential relationships between them in that specific sentence. In this framework, RB is the consequence of a perceptual limitation that impairs the rapid creation of separate tokens for two occurrences of the type. Type-Token Accounts of RBThere are two major variants of this type-token account that propose different sources for RB. According to the type refractoriness hypothesis, RB is due to the activation dynamics of type nodes, rather than to a problem with token formation or binding. The representation of a particular stimulus undergoes a period of reduced sensitivity immediately after firing, by analogy with the refractoriness of neurons. Accordingly, if the stimulus appears twice in close succession, the second occurrence may be unable to increase the node's activation enough to be recognized or induce a response. The second class of models attributes RB to problems in token individuation. Even though the two separate occurrences are both "recognized" at the type level, formation of a second token from a single type is briefly inhibited after the first token is individuated (e.g., Kanwisher, 1987).The type refractoriness hypothesis has been formalized in dynamical models based on a signal detection approach that implement a "rudimentary form of adaptation" (Bavelier & Jordan, 1992, p. 883). Bavelier and Jordan's model assumes that ...

show abstract

“…For example, for the sentence, "She ate salad andfish even though the fish was raw," readers show poor recall of the second presentation of the word fish relative to recall performance for the following control: "She ate salad and seafood even though thefish was raw." The effect occurs in the repeated case even though the omission of the second word makes the sentence ungrammatical.RB is a robust finding and has been reported now by a number of researchers using a variety of different paradigms (e.g., Hochhaus & Marohn, 1991;Humphreys, Besner, & Quinlan, 1988;Mozer, 1989). The RB effect has been found when both words differ in case (Kanwisher, 1987;Marohn & Hochhaus, 1988) and with as many as three intervening words present between the first and the second repetition.…”

mentioning

confidence: 81%

“…RB is a robust finding and has been reported now by a number of researchers using a variety of different paradigms (e.g., Hochhaus & Marohn, 1991;Humphreys, Besner, & Quinlan, 1988;Mozer, 1989). The RB effect has been found when both words differ in case (Kanwisher, 1987;Marohn & Hochhaus, 1988) and with as many as three intervening words present between the first and the second repetition.…”

mentioning

confidence: 81%

Repetition blindness and bilingual memory: Token individuation for translation equivalents

Altarriba

Soltano

1996

Mem Cogn

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The repetition blindness effect (RB) occurs when individuals are unable to recall a repeated word relative to a nonrepeated word in a sentence or string of words presented in a rapid serial visual presentation task. This effect was explored across languages (English and Spanish) in an attempt to provide evidence for RB at a conceptual level using noncognate translation equivalents (e.g., nephew-sabrina). In the first experiment, RB was found when a word was repeated in an English sentence but not when the two repetitions were in different languages. In the second experiment, RB was found for identical repetitions in Spanish and in English using word lists. However, the crosslanguage condition produced significant facilitation in recall, suggesting that although conceptual processing had taken place, semantic overlap was not sufficient to produce RB.The results confirm Kanwisher's (1987) token individuation hypothesis in the case of translation equivalents.Repetition blindness (RB) (Kanwisher, 1986(Kanwisher, , 1987 refers to the inability to recall a repeated word in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) task. For example, for the sentence, "She ate salad andfish even though the fish was raw," readers show poor recall of the second presentation of the word fish relative to recall performance for the following control: "She ate salad and seafood even though thefish was raw." The effect occurs in the repeated case even though the omission of the second word makes the sentence ungrammatical.RB is a robust finding and has been reported now by a number of researchers using a variety of different paradigms (e.g., Hochhaus & Marohn, 1991;Humphreys, Besner, & Quinlan, 1988;Mozer, 1989). The RB effect has been found when both words differ in case (Kanwisher, 1987;Marohn & Hochhaus, 1988) and with as many as three intervening words present between the first and the second repetition. Presentation rates of approximately 8 words per second typically yield this effect, and lengthening presentation rate diminishes blindness (Kanwisher, 1987;Park & Kanwisher, 1994). RB has This work was supported by a Faculty Research Award granted to the first author from the University at Albany, State University of New York. Portions of these data were presented at the 34th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Washington, D.C., November 1993. The authors would like to thank Wendy 1. Forsythe for her assistance in the preparation of materials and Janat Parker and Bennett L. Schwartz for the use of their laboratory facilities at Florida International University, Miami. The authors would also like to thank Mercedes A. Altarriba and Mohamed Omar Roumane for verifying the translations of our sentences and words. Daphne Bavelier, Nancy Kanwisher, and Molly Potter provided very helpful discussions throughout the preparation of this manuscript. Thanks are also extended to Kristen Diliberto, Judith Kroll, and Chun Luo for their helpful comments on an earlier draft of this article. Correspondence should be sent to 1. Altarriba, Department o...

show abstract

Repetition blindness depends on perceptual capture and token individuation failure.

Cited by 42 publications

References 22 publications

Orthographic Neighbours are not all Equal: Evidence using an Identification Technique

Orthographic Neighbours are not all Equal: Evidence using an Identification Technique

Repetition blindness in sentence contexts: Not just an attribution?

Repetition blindness and bilingual memory: Token individuation for translation equivalents

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About