Browse > Article
http://dx.doi.org/10.19066/cogsci.2022.33.1.001

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

Kim, Inik (Department of Psychology, Jeonbuk National University)
Park, ChangHo (Department of Psychology, Jeonbuk National University)
Publication Information
Korean Journal of Cognitive Science / v.33, no.1, 2022 , pp. 1-22 More about this Journal
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.
Keywords
attentional selection; perceptual load; flanker task; negative repetition effect (NRE); post-cueing forced choice task;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Forster, S., & Lavie, N. (2007). High perceptual load makes everybody equal. Psychological Science, 18, 377-381.   DOI
2 Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 451-468.   DOI
3 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.   DOI
4 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.   DOI
5 Lavie, N., & Fox, E. (2000). The role of perceptual load in negative priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 1038-1052.   DOI
6 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.   DOI
7 Lavie, N., & Tsal, Y. (1994). Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 183-197.   DOI
8 Park, C. (2012). Review of Negative/Positive Repetition Effect in Visual Information Processing. Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 24, 191-209.   DOI
9 Park, C. (2013). The Influence of Unattended Distractors on the Identification of Targets. Korean Journal of Cognitive Science, 24, 365-391.   DOI
10 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.   DOI
11 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.   DOI
12 Broadbent, D. E. (1958). Perception and Communication. New York, NY: Pergamon Press.
13 Deutsch, J. A., & Deutsch, D. (1963). Attention: Some theoretical considerations. Psychological Review, 70, 80-90.   DOI
14 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.
15 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.   DOI
16 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.   DOI
17 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.   DOI
18 Benoni, H., & Tsal, Y. (2013). Conceptual and methodological concerns in the theory of perceptual load. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, 522.   DOI
19 Bjork, E. L., & Murray, J. T (1977). On the nature of input channels in visual processing. Psychological Review, 84, 472-484.   DOI
20 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.   DOI
21 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.   DOI
22 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.   DOI
23 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.   DOI
24 Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load. Trends in cognitive sciences, 9, 75-82.   DOI
25 Lavie, N. (2010). Attention, distraction, and cognitive control under load. Current directions in psychological science, 19, 143-148.   DOI
26 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.   DOI
27 Forster, S., & Lavie, N. (2008). Failures to ignore entirely irrelevant distractors: The role of load. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14, 73-83.   DOI
28 Burnham, B. R. (2010). Cognitive load modulates attentional capture by color singletons during effortful visual search. Acta Psychologica, 135, 20-28.   DOI
29 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.   DOI