Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

A Pollatsek

Publications and source records attributed to A Pollatsek.

48 records · Page 3Linked to original sources
PubMed1984

Integrating pictorial information across eye movements.

Six experiments are reported dealing with the types of information integrated across eye movements in picture perception. A line drawing of an object was presented in peripheral vision, and subjects made an eye movement to it. During the saccade, the initially presented picture was replaced by another picture that the subject was instructed to name as quickly as possible. The relation between the stimulus on the first fixation and the stimulus on the second fixation was varied. Across the six experiments, there was about 100-130 ms facilitation when the pictures were identical compared with a control condition in which only the target location was specified on the first fixation. This finding clearly implies that information about the first picture facilitated naming the second picture. Changing the size of the picture from one fixation to the next had little effect on naming time. This result is consistent with work on reading and low-level visual processes in indicating that pictorial information is not integrated in a point-by-point manner in an integrated visual buffer. Moreover, only about 50 ms of the facilitation for identical pictures could be attributed to the pictures having the same name. When the pictures represented the same concept (e.g., two different pictures of a horse), there was a 90-ms facilitation effect that could have been the result of either the visual or conceptual similarity of the pictures. However, when the pictures had different names, only visual similarity produced facilitation. Moreover, when the pictures had different names, there appeared to be inhibition from the competing names. The results of all six experiments are consistent with a model in which the activation of both the visual features and the name of the picture seen on the first fixation survive the saccade and combine with the information extracted on the second fixation to produce identification and naming of the second picture.

Discrimination Learning↗
PubMed1979

Orthography and familiarity effects in word processing.

Both orthographic regularity and visual familiarity have been implicated as contributors to the efficiency of processing visually presented words. Our studies sought to determine which of the internal codes representing words in the nervous system are facilitated by these two variables. To do this, sets of letter strings in which orthography and familiarity were factorially combined were used as the basis for physical, phonetic, semantic, and lexical judgments. The data indicated consistent effects of orthography on the activation of all codes. These effects were seen in same-different matching and in judgments of stimulus orientation, which are based on visual codes; in judgments of pronounceability based on phonetic codes; in judgments of meaningfulness based on semantic codes; and in lexical decisions, which are based on phonetic and semantic codes together. Familiarity, on the other hand, had a clear influence on the activation of semantic codes and to a lesser extent affected phonetic codes. Despite previous positive results found in matching letter strings, however, no influence of familiarity occurred in judgments based on visual codes once evidence for criterion shifting was eliminated. Our negative results included direct tests of facilitation in matching acronyms (e.g., FBI) and in matching both regular and irregular strings familiarized by specific training. It now appears that earlier findings of visual familiarity effects may be attributed to response biases resulting from the activation of higher level codes sensitive to familiarity, and to the use of small sets of training stimuli that allowed subjects to induce orthographic-like rules. The results obtained so far with our methods seem to reconcile an inconsistent literature by showing that speeded decisions based on visual codes are most strongly influenced by rule-governed processing mechanisms sensitive to orthographic structure, whereas decisions based on phonetic and semantic codes are affected about equally by rule-governed mechanisms and by stimulus-specific mechanisms sensitive to familiarity. This conclusion may lead to changes in notions of how effective various kinds of visual training are likely to be at different stages in the acquisition of reading skill.

Discrimination Learning↗
PubMed1975

Familiarity affects visual processing of words.

While previous research has demonstrated that words can be processed more rapidly and/or more accurately than random strings of letters, it has not been convincingly demonstrated that the superior processing of words is a visual effect. In the present experiment, the cases of letters were manipulated in letter strings that were to be compared on the basis of physical identity. Mean response time was shorter for words than for nonwords even for pairs of letter strings that differed only in case (e.g., site-site). This finding implies that the advantage of words over nonwords (the familiarity effect) typically observed in the simultaneous matching task is not due solely to comparison of either the word names or the letter names and, thus, that at least part of the familiarity effect must be due to more rapid formation and/or comparison of visual representations of the two letter strings when they are words. Further analysis failed to reveal a significant involvement of phonemic or lexical codes in the comparison judgments.

Adolescent↗