DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

The Influence of perceptual load on target identification and negative repetition effect in post-cueing forced choice task

순간 노출되는 표적의 식별과 부적 반복효과에 지각부하가 미치는 영향

  • Kim, Inik (Department of Psychology, Jeonbuk National University) ;
  • Park, ChangHo (Department of Psychology, Jeonbuk National University)
  • Received : 2021.12.27
  • Accepted : 2021.12.27
  • Published : 2022.03.31

Abstract

Lavie's perceptual load theory (Lavie, 1995) proposes that the influence of distractors would be blocked as the load gets higher. Studies of perceptual load have usually adopted the flanker task, developed by Eriksen and Eriksen (1974), which measures reaction time on the target flanked by distractors. In the post-cueing forced task, participants should report the identity of the target cued later, and negative repetition effect (NRE) has often been observed. NRE means the effect that the accuracy of identification is worse when the target is flanked by the same nontargets than when flanked by different nontargets. This study has tried to check whether perceptual load has an effect on identification rate and NRE. Experiment 1 manipulated the similarity between targets and a distractor, and observed a tendency of NRE, but not the effect of perceptual load. Experiment 2 used 4, 2 (in two kinds of diagonal arrangement), or none distractors of the same identity to burden more perceptual load. NRE was significant and perceptual load showed significance but not a linear trend. Experiment 3 checked again whether NRE would be varied according to two levels of perceptual load strengthened by positional variability of load stimuli, but did not find the effect of perceptual load. It is concluded that perceptual load might have a limited effect on the early stage of perceptual processing due to divided attentional processing of the targets briefly exposed. Implications of this study were discussed.

지각부하 이론(Lavie, 1995)에 따르면 지각부하가 높을수록 방해자극의 영향이 감소한다. 지각부하를 다룬 연구들은 문자열에서 표적 문자의 탐지에 걸린 반응시간을 측정하는 Eriksen과 Eriksen(1974)의 측면자극 과제(flanker task)를 주로 사용하였다. 한편, 순간 노출되고 사라진 문자열 중 보고해야 할 표적이 후단서로 지시되는 후단서 강제선택 과제에서는 부적 반복효과(negative repetition effect; NRE)가 관찰된다. 이 효과는 나란히 제시된 두 문자가 서로 다른 경우보다 동일할 때, 표적의 식별률이 더 떨어지는 것을 말한다. 후단서 강제선택 과제는 정보처리의 초기지각 단계와 관련한 처리 과정을 잘 보여준다. 본 연구는 지각부하가 후단서 강제선택 과제에서 표적의 정확 식별률과 NRE에 어떤 영향을 미치는지를 검토하고자 하였다. 지각부하는 후단서에 의한 강제선택 대상인 두 문자(표적 후보) 사이에 삽입되는 제3의 문자의 유사성(실험 1; 'ㄹ', 'ㅅ', '·')과 개수(실험 2; 0개, 2개-왼쪽 대각선 배치와 오른쪽 대각선 배치, 4개, 실험3; 2개, 4개)로 조작했다. 실험 1에서 NRE의 경향성이 관찰되었으나 지각부하의 효과는 관찰되지 않았다. 실험 2에서는 NRE가 유의하였으며, 지각부하는 유의하였으나, NRE와의 상호작용은 관찰되지 않았다. 실험 3은 부하자극의 위치 변동성을 도입하여 강화된 지각부하의 수준에 따라 NRE가 변화할 것인지를 다시 확인하였는데, 지각부하의 효과가 관찰되지 않았다. 본 연구의 결과는 순간 노출된 표적에 대한 분리주의과정으로 인해 지각부하가 지각 정보처리의 초기 단계에 영향을 미치지 못하였을 가능성이 있음을 시사한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Aschenbrenner, Balota, Weigand, Scaltritti, & Besner (2017). The first letter position effect in visual word recognition: The role of spatial attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43, 700-718. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000342
  2. Benoni, H., & Tsal, Y. (2013). Conceptual and methodological concerns in the theory of perceptual load. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 522. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00522
  3. Burnham, B. R. (2010). Cognitive load modulates attentional capture by color singletons during effortful visual search. Acta Psychologica, 135, 20-28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.05.003
  4. Bjork, E. L., & Murray, J. T (1977). On the nature of input channels in visual processing. Psychological Review, 84, 472-484. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.84.5.472
  5. Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and Communication. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
  6. Cosman, J. D., Mordkoff, J. T., & Vecera, S. P. (2016). Stimulus recognition occurs under high perceptual load: Evidence from correlated flankers. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 42, 2077-2083. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000278
  7. Deutsch, J. A., & Deutsch, D. (1963). Attention: Some theoretical considerations. Psychological Review, 70, 80-90. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0039515
  8. Egeth, H. E., & Santee, J. E. (1981). Conceptual and perceptual components of inter letter inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 7, 506-517. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.7.3.506
  9. Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effect of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143-149. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203267
  10. Eriksen, C. W., & Schultz, D. W. (1979). Information processing in visual search: A continuous flow conception and experimental results. Perception and Psychophysics, 25, 249-263. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03198804
  11. Forster, S., & Lavie, N. (2007). High perceptual load makes everybody equal. Psychological Science, 18, 377-381. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01908.x
  12. Forster, S., & Lavie, N. (2008). Failures to ignore entirely irrelevant distractors: The role of load. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 73-83. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-898X.14.1.73
  13. Glaser, M. O., & Glaser, W. R. (1982). Time course analysis of the Stroop phenomenon. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 875-894. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.8.6.875
  14. Kwak, H. W., Kim, J. O., & Park, M. K. (1993). Time courses of the negative and positive repetition effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 814-829. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.19.4.814
  15. Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 451-468. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.21.3.451
  16. Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load. Trends in cognitive sciences, 9, 75-82. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.004
  17. Lavie, N. (2010). Attention, distraction, and cognitive control under load. Current directions in psychological science, 19, 143-148. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721410370295
  18. Lavie, N., & Cox, S. (1997). On the efficiency of visual selective attention: Efficient visual search leads to inefficient distractor rejection. Psychological Science, 8, 395-396. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00432.x
  19. Lavie, M., & de Fockert, J. W. (2003). Contrasting effects of sensory limits and capacity limits in visual selective attention. Perception and Psychophysics, 65, 202-212. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194795
  20. Lavie, N., & Fox, E. (2000). The role of perceptual load in negative priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1038-1052. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.26.3.1038
  21. Lavie, N., Hirst, A., de Fockert, J. W., & Viding, E. (2004). Load Theory of Selective Attention and Cognitive Control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133, 339-354. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.3.339
  22. Lavie, N., & Tsal, Y. (1994). Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 183-197. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03213897
  23. Murphy, G., Groeger, J. A., & Greene, C. M. (2016). Twenty years of load theory -Where are we now, and where should we go next? Psychonomic bulletin & review, 23, 1316-1340. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0982-5
  24. Park, C. (2008). The influence of uniform connectedness and report task type on the perception of brief displays. Korean Journal of Experimental Psychology, 20, 39-54.
  25. Park, C. (2012). Review of Negative/Positive Repetition Effect in Visual Information Processing. Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 24, 191-209. https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2012.24.2.006
  26. Park, C. (2013). The Influence of Unattended Distractors on the Identification of Targets. Korean Journal of Cognitive Science, 24, 365-391. https://doi.org/10.19066/cogsci.2013.24.4.004
  27. Santee, J. L., & Egeth, H. E. (1982). Do reaction time and accuracy measure the same aspects of letter recognition? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 489-501. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.8.4.489
  28. Tsal, Y., & Benoni, H. (2010). Diluting the burden of load: Perceptual load effects are simply dilution effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1645-1656. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018172
  29. Weissman, D. H., Drake, B., Colella, K., & Samuel, D. (2018). Perceptual load is not always a crucial determinant of early versus late selection. Acta Psychologica, 185, 125-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2018.02.004