바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev
e-Submission

Vol.26 No.3

Citation Share

Allocation of Attention influences on the Repetition Effect between Target and Distractors

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2014, v.26 no.3, pp.193-206
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2014.26.3.004

(2014). Allocation of Attention influences on the Repetition Effect between Target and Distractors. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 26(3), 193-206, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2014.26.3.004

Abstract

Negative repetition effects (NREs) have been reported that the accuracy of target identification is lowered when a target is flanked by the same distractor than when by alternative distractor in briefly exposed displays. Park (2013) used attention windows to indicate the positions of probable targets, and observed positive repetition effects (PREs) with distractors close to the target and NREs with distant distractors. This study investigated whether the above results could be replicated when allocation of attention is varied among attention windows. In Experiment 1, when the probability of target presentation is the same between the two centered attention windows, repetition of the same distractor to the target had no effect in identifying the target. However, when allocation of attention is biased toward one of the two attention windows in Experiment 2, in regard to the target presented in the less probable position, the distractor close to the target produced PRE and the distant distractor produced NRE. This result is hard to be explained by various existing hypotheses, and indicates that it is necessary to consider seriously the issue of attention shift between the target and distractors.

keywords
부적 반복효과, 정적 반복효과, 측면자극효과, 주의배분, repetition effect, NRE, flanker effect, allocation of attention

Reference

1.

김정오, 이상훈 (1994). 부적반복효과에 대한 억제적 주의포착설 및 그 상대가설들의 검증(I). 한국심리학회 1994년 연차대회 학술발표 논문집, 119-128.

2.

박창호 (2012). 시각 정보처리에서 부적/정적 반복효과에 대한 고찰. 한국심리학회지: 인지 및 생물, 24, 191-209.

3.

박창호 (2013). 주의하지 않은 방해자극이 표적의 식별에 미치는 영향. 인지과학, 24, 365∼391.

4.

Bjork, E. L., & Murray, J. T. (1977). On the nature of input channels in visual processing. Psychological Review, 84, 477-484.

5.

Egly, R., & Homa, D. (1984). Sensitization of the visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 778-793.

6.

Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Memory & Cognition, 16, 143-149.

7.

Eriksen, C. W., Morris, N, Yeh, Y.-Y., O'Hara, W., & Durst, R. T. (1981). Is recognition accuracy really impaired when the target is repeated in the display? Perception & Psychophysics, 30, 375-385.

8.

Eriksen, C. W., & Yeh, Y.-Y. (1985). Allocation of attention in the visual field. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 11, 583-597.

9.

Estes, W. K. (1982). Similarity-related channel interactions in visual processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 353-382.

10.

Kanwisher, N. (1991). Repetition blindness and illusory conjunctions: Errors in binding visual types with visual tokens. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 404-421.

11.

Kwak, H. -W., Kim, J. -O., & Park, M. -K. (1993). Time courses of the negative and positive repetition effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 814-829.

12.

Wühr, P., & Müsseler, J. (2005). When do irrelevant visual stimuli impair processing of identical targets? Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 897-909.

13.

Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1996). Attentional capture by abrupt onsets: New perceptual objects or visual masking? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1505-1513.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy