Uncertainty and latency of verbal naming responses as correlates of pattern goodness

Clement, David E.

doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(64)80033-5

Cited by 43 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But the data of Fig. 3 Handel and Garner (1966) found lower uncertainty in the response of specifying a pattern "suggested by" the stimulus, and Clement (1964) found lower uncertainty in the response of providing a one-word name for the stimulus. These data accord with Garner's hypothesis that a better figure is perceived as a member of a smaller subset of figures with a lower stimulus uncertainty on the assumption that response uncertainty reflects stimulus uncertainty.…”

Section: The Mechanism Mediating the Predictability Phenomenonmentioning

confidence: 87%

“…the most 'straightforward are the "goodness" ratings collected by Garner and Clement (1963). Clement (1964), and Handel and Garner (1966). Ss in these studies rated the patterns for "goodness" on a 7-point scale like that used for the subpatterns in the present study.…”

Section: Predictability Of Figural Elementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The five-dot patterns employed in previous research on the perceived-alternatives hypothesis (Clement, 1964(Clement, , 1967Garner & Clement, 1963;Handel & Garner, 1966) were tested for the predictability of their elements. Each pattern' was· decomposed into four-dot subpatterns, and the subpatterns were presented to Ss, who were asked in each instance to "add a fifth dot suggested or implied" by the four dots already present.…”

Section: Overview Of the Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Figural goodness and the predictability of figural elements

Bear

1973

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

All 1:6 patterns composed of five dots distributed over the cells of a 3 by 3 matrix were examined for the predictability of their elements. The predictability of a given dot in a given pattern was measured as the percentage of Ss who indicated that dot as one "implied or suggested" by the subpattern composed of the remaining four dots of the pattern. The dots comprising a figurally good five-dot pattern were generally more predictable. one from the others. than the dots comprising a poor pattern. This finding accords with the Gestaltivt conception of a good figure as one whose elements are well organized. and it is the state of affairs required by Garner's hypothesis that better figures are perceived to have fewer alternatives than poorer figures. A mechanism mediating the prediction of an element of a pattern from the other elements was suggested.

show abstract

Section: The Mechanism Mediating the Predictability Phenomenonmentioning

confidence: 87%

Section: Predictability Of Figural Elementsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Overview Of the Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Figural goodness and the predictability of figural elements

Bear

1973

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The test stimuli were eight dot patterns selected from those described by Clement (1964). They were formed by placing five black dots within cells of an imaginary 3 by 3 square matrix.…”

Section: Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In that context, the uncertainty of a stimulus is considered to be a positive function of the size of the inferred subset of equivalent stimuli to which it belongs. In the case of the dot patterns described by Clement (1964), and used in the present experiment, the size of the equivalent set of stimuli has arbitrarily been defined as "the total number of different patterns which could be obtained by performing the operations of reflection (mirroring or reversal) and 90°rotation, either singly or jointly [Clement, 1964, p. 154]."…”

Section: Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%