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.

Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.