Repetition blindness, forward and backward.

Abstract

In these experiments, 2 letters were presented sequentially to the left and right of fixation, followed by pattern masks. Report was cued by spatial location (Experiments 1a, 1b, 2, 4, and 5) or temporal position (Experiments 3, 4, and 5). In all experiments, 2 identical letters on a trial resulted in reduced accuracy of report (repetition blindness; RB) for both the 1st and 2nd presented letters. This decrement was greater for the 2nd letter if subjects expected temporal cues, but tended to be greater for the 1st letter if they expected spatial cues. Analyses of errors and responses on catch trials indicated no bias against report of repetitions, and the repetition decrement did not interact with output order. The data are inconsistent with both type-refractoriness and memory-retrieval accounts of RB. A modified version of N. G. Kanwisher's (1987) token-individuation theory is proposed to account for the results.

Repetition blindness and repetition priming: Effects of featural differences between targets and distractors on RSVP dual-target search

“…) ness, provide effective visual cues to attract attention and enhance the perception of the targets. These data support a type-token (Chun, 1997;Kanwisher, 1987;Neill et al, 2002) account of visual processing and suggest that when establishing the presence of two temporally separated items in the environment, not only is it important how they differ featurally from one another, but also how they differ from other stimuli in close temporal proximity.…”

“…Previous work has shown that categorical differences between targets and distractors do not remove repetition blindness; therefore, it appears that featural differences, rather than just general distinctivetractors enhance target registration in dual-target RSVP search; however, the data also have implications for models of repetition blindness. We have offered a type-token account of our data (Chun, 1997;Kanwisher, 1987;Neill et al, 2002;Potter, 1999); however, alternative theoretical accounts have been offered to explain the processing of repeated stimuli in RSVP.…”

“…Chun (1997; see also Kanwisher, 1987;Neill, Neely, Hutchison, Kahan, & VerWys, 2002) proposed a typetoken model to account for both the attentional blink and repetition blindness he observed in his study. He suggested that the recognition of visual stimuli is undertaken by two separate processing modules, one responsible for extracting type information that pertains to the identity of a stimulus, and another that extracts token information that represents the stimulus's spatiotemporal location.…”

When Words Collide: Facilitation and Interference in the Report of Repeated Words From Rapidly Presented Lists.

“…It is the fallibility of this discrimination that lies at the heart of repetition blindness. This notion is quite similar to a modified type-token account offered by Neill, Neely, Hutchison, Kahan, and VerWys (2002). That account was motivated by the finding that, depending on how list report was cued, repetition blindness could be greater for report of the first member of a repeated pair than for the second member.…”

“…Rather, the critical process involved in discounting is one of misattribution, which fits readily into the evaluation component of the construction account. Thus, as with the Neill et al (2002) instantiation-contextualization account, processes that comprise the ROUSE model's explanation of repetition blindness are more naturally compatible with a construction than they are with a type-token account.…”