PubMed HealthSearch

PubMed · 7891212

Simultaneous better than sequential for brief presentations.

Abstract

During perceptually intensive tasks such as reading, there is a bottleneck in the information transfer between the large number of alphanumeric characters available and the acquiring of these characters. This is due mainly to the limited number of characters that one can report at a glance (also known as the "magic number 7 +/- 2") [Psychol. Rev. 63, 81 (1956)]. To examine where in the perceptual pathway this bottleneck occurred, several investigators tested and compared performance with simultaneous and with sequential target presentations [J. Exp. Psychol. 79, 1 (1969); 93, 72 (1972); Percept. Psychophys. 14, 231 (1973)]. They found that performance was nearly equal in the two cases and concluded that the bottleneck must be due to the limitation of short-term memory. However, these studies were limited either by a long stimulus-onset asynchrony (SOA), or time interval between onsets of icon presentations, or by a lack of poststimulus masking. We report on experiments designed to overcome these limitations. We used shorter SOA's than did previous investigators, and we removed persistence effects by poststimulus masking. Our stimuli were presented either sequentially or simultaneously. For the sequential presentation a numeral ranging from 0 to 9 was displayed at any one of eight positions 1.5 deg from a central fixation cross. The appearance of the next numeral in another part of the display coincided with the masking of the previous numeral. This was done for trials of one to four numerals and SOA's of 16.7, 33.3, and 50.0 ms.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

G K Hung, J Wilder, R Curry, B Julesz. 1995. Simultaneous better than sequential for brief presentations.. https://doi.org/10.1364/josaa.12.000441

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Visual attention: controlling what we see and do.

Controlling what we see and do in complex environments depends upon the interaction of top-down control mechanisms located in the prefrontal cortex, on the one hand, and bottom-up competition between objects for limited perceptual resources in posterior cortical areas, on the other.

Attention

On the role of selective attention in visual perception.

What is the role of selective attention in visual perception? Before answering this question, it is necessary to differentiate between attentional mechanisms that influence the identification of a stimulus from those that operate after perception is complete. Cognitive neuroscience techniques are particularly well suited to making this distinction because they allow different attentional mechanisms to be isolated in terms of timing and/or neuroanatomy. The present article describes the use of these techniques in differentiating between perceptual and postperceptual attentional mechanisms and then proposes a specific role of attention in visual perception. Specifically, attention is proposed to resolve ambiguities in neural coding that arise when multiple objects are processed simultaneously. Evidence for this hypothesis is provided by two experiments showing that attention-as measured electrophysiologically-is allocated to visual search targets only under conditions that would be expected to lead to ambiguous neural coding.

Attention

Letter recognition reveals pathways of second-order and third-order motion.

How are second-order (texture-defined) and third-order (pattern-tracking) motions processed in our brains? As shown here in the context of an ambiguous motion task involving a nominal second-order stimuli first devised by Werkhoven et al., [Werkhoven, P., Sperling, G. & Chubb, C. (1993) Vision Res. 33, 463-485.], the observers fell into two distinct groups based on the direction of perceived motion. The differences were interpreted in terms of the algorithms used to extract motion: one group by using a second-order motion process and the other by using a third-order motion process. This was investigated further using a dual-task paradigm in which the interference between two tasks indicated the nature of processing involved. Observers who used third-order motion processing experienced interference with letter recognition and a more severe interference in dual third-order motion tasks. Observers who used second-order motion processing experienced interference with another second-order motion detection but not with letter recognition. Insofar as task interference implies the need for attention, the complex interference effects and the apparently paradoxical interference effects of second-order motion perception imply that there are multiple forms of attention. Whether two tasks interfere depends on whether they require the same form of attention. Insofar as spatio-temporal processing is assumed to be carried out in the dorsal stream and pattern recognition in the ventral stream, the interference patterns suggest that second-order motion may be computed entirely in the dorsal stream, and third-order motion may involve two computational processes, one of which shares computational resources with the letter recognition task in the ventral stream.

Attention