1981
DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.7.5.948
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Visual form integration and discontinuity detection.

Abstract: Two experiments were conducted to determine if discontinuity detection limits the visual integration of two stimuli presented successively. If this is the case, then presenting two dim stimuli should permit better integration than presenting two bright stimuli. In Experiment 1, five observers named the position of the missing dot in a 5 x 5 dot matrix. Twelve randomly selected dots were presented in each of two stimulus presentations. The stimuli varied in intensity in a ratio of 15:1 and stimulus onset asynch… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

1983
1983
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
1

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 10 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 14 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The present experiment, however, found an inverse size effect, which is defined by Long as being a hallmark of Type I persistence. A possible reason for this inconsistency may be that the experiments using the successive-field integration tasks that Long classified as being examples of Type II persistence were characterized by a large set of alternative responses: Eriksen and Collins (1968) had their subjects identify a CVC nonsense syllable, and Kinnucan and Friden (1981) had their subjects identify the missing dot in a 5 X 5 dot matrix. The present study, on the other hand, had a much smaller set of possible responses; in addition, the use of the LED display creates digits that are somewhat artificial in appearance and are potentially more confusable with one another.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The present experiment, however, found an inverse size effect, which is defined by Long as being a hallmark of Type I persistence. A possible reason for this inconsistency may be that the experiments using the successive-field integration tasks that Long classified as being examples of Type II persistence were characterized by a large set of alternative responses: Eriksen and Collins (1968) had their subjects identify a CVC nonsense syllable, and Kinnucan and Friden (1981) had their subjects identify the missing dot in a 5 X 5 dot matrix. The present study, on the other hand, had a much smaller set of possible responses; in addition, the use of the LED display creates digits that are somewhat artificial in appearance and are potentially more confusable with one another.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…He held the ISI constant and also found a positive relationship between intensity and performance. Kinnucan and Friden (1981), DiLollo and Woods (1981), and DiLollo and Bourassa (1983) used a dot matrix instead of letters. A matrix was divided into two displays.…”
Section: Successive-field Paradigmmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In Long and Sakitt's (1980) study, data were taken from Subject DV at the 50-ms flash duration. In Kinnucan and Friden's (1981) paper, the 60-ms ISI was used. In Adelson and Jonides' (1980) paper, the 200-ms cue delay was used.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The number of scanning lines should correspond with the pitch of the shadow mask, but this is not always the case. Developments in high-resolution monitors and graphics boards have recently been reviewed [46].…”
Section: Resolutionmentioning
confidence: 99%