Search PubMed⌕ Search

SEARCH · Search PubMed

Results for “SIZE PERCEPTION”

Search indexed PubMed citations on genomics, clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health. Explore titles, authors and supplied subject terms, then open the PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 1,711 records · Page 95Linked to original sources
PubMed2004

Interhemispheric interaction during global-local processing in mathematically gifted adolescents, average-ability youth, and college students.

Interhemispheric interaction in mathematically gifted (MG) adolescents, average-ability (AA) youth, and college students (CS) was examined by presenting hierarchical letter pairs in 3 viewing conditions: (a) unilaterally to the right hemisphere (RH), (b) unilaterally to the left hemisphere (LH), or (c) bilaterally, with 1 member of the pair presented to each hemisphere simultaneously. Participants made global-local, match-no-match judgments. For the AA and CS, the LH was faster for local matches and the RH for global matches. The MG showed no hemispheric differences. Also, AA and CS were slower on cooperative compared with unilateral trials, whereas the MG showed the opposite pattern. These results suggest that enhanced interhemispheric interaction is a unique functional characteristic of the MG brain.

Adolescent↗
PubMed1995

Letter localization, not discrimination, is constrained by attention.

Shaw (1984; Shaw, Mulligan & Stone, 1983) measured the probability of detecting a target letter in displays containing different numbers of items. The set size effect was significantly larger than the effect predicted by unlimited-capacity models of visual processing, and Shaw concluded that attention constrains the discrimination of complex, but not simple, patterns. We re-examined the role of attention in letter discrimination by measuring the effect of set size on the contrast needed to identify a target embedded among distractors. The results of 5 experiments show that set size effects are small for letter discrimination, but large for letter localization. The findings suggest that the large set size effect reported by Shaw (1984) was a result of asking subjects to localize the target. In addition, the results are consistent with the hypothesis that limited processing capacity constrains the perceptual processes involved in letter localization, but not discrimination.

Attention↗