Abstract
Sequential (vs. simultaneous) presentation of two letters in a physical-identity matching task enhanced the fast-same effect, but did not reduce the preponderance of false-“different” errors or the effect of visual similarity. Thus, the sequential enhancement of the fast-same effect involves an increased efficiency in encoding (d’) owing to letter repetition, as Proctor claimed, rather than a criterion shift (β), and it involves the visual code rather than the name code. The increased efficiency in detecting sameness with sequential presentation might result from spatial separation (e.g., reduced lateral interference and self-termination), though, rather than temporal separation (e.g., priming), However, such spatial factors as letter size and interletter spacing had no consistent effect on the speed advantage forsame pairs, and it was concluded that temporal, not spatial, separation enhances the fast-same effect on sequential trials, Consistent with the response-competition model (Eriksen, O’Hara, & Eriksen), responses were slower and more errorful to similar than to dissimilardifferent pairs, and were equally fast to dissimilar andsame pairs on simultaneous trials.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Bamber, D. (1969). Reaction times and error rates for “same”-“different” judgments of multidimensional stimuli.Perception & Psychophysics,6, 169–174.
Bjork, E. L., &Murray, J. T. (1977). On the nature of input channels in visual processing.Psychological Review,84, 472–484.
Boles, D. B., &Eveland, D. C. (1983). Visual and phonetic codes and the process of generation in letter matching.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,9, 657–674.
Crist, W. B. (1981). Matching performance and the similarity structure of the stimulus set.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,110, 269–296.
Eriksen, C. W., &Hoffman, J. E. (1973). The extent of processing of noise elements during selective encoding from visual displays.Perception &Psychophysics,14, 155–160.
Eriksen, C. W., O’hara, W. P., &Eriksen, B. A. (1982). Response competition effects insame-different judgments.Perception &Psychophysics,32, 261–270.
Eriksen, C. W., &Rohrbaugh, J. W. (1970). Some factors affecting the efficiency of selective attention.American Journal of Psychology,83, 330–342.
Estes, W. K. (1982). Similarity-related channel interactions in visual processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,8, 353–382.
Gilmore, G. C., Hersh, M., Caramazza, A., &Griffin, J. (1979). Multidimensional letter similarity derived from recognition errors.Perception & Psychophysics,25, 425–431.
Keren, G. (1982, November).The role of positional uncertainty in letter identification. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Minneapolis.
Krueger, L. E. (1978). A theory of perceptual matching.Psychological Review,85, 278–304.
Krueger, L. E. (1983). Probing Proctor’s priming principle: The effect of simultaneous and sequential presentation onsame-different judgments.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,9, 511–523.
Krueger, L. E. (1984). Self-termination insame-different judgments: Multiletter comparison with simultaneous and sequential presentation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,10, 271–284.
Krueger, L. E., &Shapiro, R. G. (1981). A reformulation of Proctor’s unified theory for matching task phenomena.Psychological Review,88, 573–581.
Krueger, L. E., &Shapiro, R. G. (1982). Search for a matching or mismatching letter pair.Perception & Psychophysics,31, 484–492.
Podgorny, P., &Garner, W. R. (1979). Reaction time as a measure of inter- and intra object similarity: Letters of the alphabet.Perception & Psychophysics,26, 37–52.
Proctor, R. W. (1981). A unified theory for matching-task phenomena.Psychological Review,88, 291–326.
Proctor, R. W., &Rao, K. V. (1983a). Evidence that thesame-different disparity in letter matching is not attributable to response bias.Perception & Psychophysics,34, 72–76.
Proctor, R. W., &Rao, K. V. (1983b). Null effects of exposure duration and heterogeneity of difference on thesame-different disparity in letter matching.Perception & Psychophysics,33, 163–171.
Proctor, R. W., &Rao, K. V. (1983c). Reinstating the original principles of Proctor’s unified theory for matching-task phenomena: An evaluation of Krueger and Shapiro’s reformulation.Psychological Review,90, 21–37.
Shepard, R. N., &Arabie, P. (1979). Additive clustering: Representation of similarities as combinations of overlapping properties.Psychological Review,86, 87–123.
Thorson, G., Hochhaus, L., &Stanners, R. F. (1976). Temporal changes in visual and acoustic codes in a letter-matching task.Perception & Psychophysics,19, 346–348.
Townsend, J. T. (1971). Theoretical analysis of an alphabetic confusion matrix.Perception & Psychophysics,9, 40–50.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This study was supported by a postdoctoral fellowship to Mark H. Chignell from the Graduate School, Ohio State University.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Chignell, M.H., Krueger, L.E. Further evidence for priming in perceptual matching: Temporal, not spatial, separation enhances the fast-same effect. Perception & Psychophysics 36, 257–265 (1984). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206367
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206367