Abstract
When observers are asked to report a feature of a single target displayed in rapid serial visual presentation, they frequently make errors. Most frequently, a feature from the to-be-reported dimension pertaining to a stimulus presented near the target is reported. These migrations are so-calledillusory conjunctions in the time domain. From parallel models, it is proposed that during the presentation of the series, the response features of the stimuli are extracted. If a high rate of presentation does not enable proper binding processes, the system could base its response on sophisticated guessing on the basis of the relative levels of activation of the available response features. However, the multiple extractions assumption has not received direct empirical support. We report two experiments in which the observers had to report their first and second response candidates. This double response paradigm makes it possible to test the assumption that more than one response feature is available for making a response. Furthermore, the application of the constant ratio rule (following Botella, Barriopedro, & Suero’s, 2001, model) to the first responses allows predictions for the ratios between choices of the items for the second responses. The correlations between the observed and the predicted response proportions were .887 and .956 in the two experiments. This high predictive capacity indicates, first, that the observers have more than one response available, among which to choose, and second, that the choice among responses is determined largely in the same way for both first and second responses. Nevertheless, the small errors in prediction are further reduced if a proportion of pure guesses is assumed in the second responses. These are probably due to memory losses, misidentifications of the features, and other factors impairing performance in second responses in comparison with first responses.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Ashby, F. G., Prinzmetal, W., Ivry, R. [B.], &Maddox, W. T. (1996). A formal theory of feature binding in object perception.Psychological Review,103, 165–192.
Botella, J. (1992). Target-specified and target-categorized conditions in RSVP tasks as reflected by detection time.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,30, 197–200.
Botella, J., Barriopedro, M. I., &Suero, M. (2001). A model of the formation of illusory conjunctions in the time domain.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,27, 1452–1467.
Botella, J., &Eriksen, C. W. (1991). Pattern changes in rapid serial visual presentation tasks without strategic shifts.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,29, 105–108.
Botella, J., &Eriksen, C. W. (1992). Filtering versus parallel processing in RSVP tasks.Perception & Psychophysics,51, 334–343.
Botella, J., García, M. L., &Barriopedro, M. [I.] (1992). Intrusion patterns in rapid serial visual presentation tasks with two response dimensions.Perception & Psychophysics,52, 547–552.
Broadbent, D. E. (1977). The hidden preattentive processes.American Psychologist,32, 109–118.
Chun, M. M., &Potter, M. C. (1995). A two-stage model for multiple target detection in rapid serial visual presentation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 109–127.
Cohen, A., &Ivry, R. [B.] (1989). Illusory conjunctions inside and outside the focus of attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,15, 650–663.
Donk, M. (1999). Illusory conjunctions are an illusion: The effects of target-nontarget similarity on conjunction and feature errors.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 1207–1233.
Donk, M. (2001). Illusory conjunctions die hard: A reply to Prinzmetal, Diedrichsen, and Ivry (2001).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,27, 542–546.
Gathercole, S. E., &Broadbent, D. E. (1984). Combining attributes in specified and categorized target search: Further evidence for strategic differences.Memory & Cognition,12, 329–337.
Hazeltine, R. E., Prinzmetal, W., &Elliott, K. (1997). If it’s not there, where is it? Locating illusory conjunctions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,23, 263–277.
Kanwisher, N. (1991). Repetition blindness and illusory conjunctions: Errors in binding visual types with visual tokens.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,17, 404–421.
Keele, S. W., Cohen, A., Ivry, R. [B.], Liotti, M., &Yee, P. (1988). Tests of a temporal theory of attentional binding.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,14, 444–452.
Keele, S. W., &Neill, W. T. (1978). Mechanisms of attention. In E. C. Carterette & M. P. Friedman (Eds.),Handbook of perception, Vol. 9: Perceptual processing (pp. 3–47). New York: Academic Press.
Kikuchi, T. (1996). Detection of kanji words in a rapid serial visual presentation task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,22, 332–341.
Lawrence, D. H. (1971). Two studies of visual search for word targets with controlled rates of presentation.Perception & Psychophysics,10, 85–89.
Logan, G. D. (2004). Cumulative progress in formal theories of attention.Annual Review of Psychology,55, 207–234.
Luce, R. D. (1959).Individual choice behavior: A theoretical analysis. New York: Wiley.
Maxwell, S. E., &Delaney, H. D. (1990).Designing experiments and analyzing data: A model comparison perspective. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.
McLean J. P., Broadbent, D. E., &Broadbent, M. H. P. (1983). Combining attributes in rapid serial presentation tasks.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,35A, 171–186.
Pashler, H., &Johnston, J. C. (1998). Attentional limitations in dualtask performance. In H. Pashler (Ed.),Attention, pp. 155–189. Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Prinzmetal, W., Diedrichsen, J., &Ivry, R. B. (2001). Illusory conjunctions are alive and well: A reply to Donk (1999).Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,27, 538–541.
Quinlan, P. T. (2003). Visual feature integration theory: Past, present, and future.Psychological Bulletin,129, 643–673.
Raymond, J. E., Shapiro, K. L., &Arnell, K. M. (1992). Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: An attentional blink?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,18, 849–860.
Reeves, A., &Sperling, G. (1986). Attention gating in short-term visual memory.Psychological Review,93, 180–206.
Schneider, W. (1988). Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,20, 206–217.
Shapiro, K. (2001).The limits of attention: Temporal constraints in human information processing. New York: Oxford University Press.
Treisman, A. M., &Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention.Cognitive Psychology,12, 97–136.
Treisman, A. [M.], &Schmidt, H. (1982). Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects.Cognitive Psychology,14, 107–141.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The present research received financial support from the Spanish Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, Project BSO2003-08908, for J.B. and M.S., and from a research fellowship from The Netherlands Organization for Scientific Research (NOW) for J.F.J.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Botella, J., Narváez, M., Suero, M. et al. Parallel processing of stimulus features during RSVP: Evidence from the second response. Perception & Psychophysics 69, 1315–1323 (2007). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192948
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192948