Recognition accuracy in a tachistoscopic identification task typically declines as the size of the set from which the target was selected increases. To determine whether this effect is due to selective encoding from iconic store, a masking stimulus, intended to erase the icon, was presented following the stimulus. Information about the set was then presented. It was found that subjects' performance in this post-cueing situation did not differ from performance in a pre-cueing condition, where the set was presented prior to the stimulus. It was concluded that set size does not have its effect through selective encoding from iconic store. Results were discussed in terms of the fragment theory.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ChapmanD. W. (1932). Relative effects of determinate and indeterminate Aufgaben. American Journal of Psychology44, 163–74.
2.
EgethH.SmithE. (1967). Perceptual selectivity in a visual recognition task. Journal of Experimental Psychology74, 543–9.
3.
EichelmanW. H. (1970). Stimulus and response repetition effects for naming letters at two response-stimulus intervals. Perception and Psychophysics7, 94–6.
4.
GummermanK. (1970). Knowledge of alternatives and perception of tachistoscopic stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology83, 385–90.
5.
HaberR. N. (1966). Nature of the effect of set on perception. Psychological Review73, 335–51.
6.
HintzmanD. L.SummersJ. J. (1973). Long-term visual traces of visually presented words. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society1, (5a)325–7.
7.
KahnemanD. (1968). Method, findings and theory in studies of visual masking. Psychological Bulletin70, 404–25.
8.
KirsnerK.SmithM. C. (1974). Modality effects in word recognition. Memory and Cognition2, 637–40.
9.
KülpeO. (1904). Berlin International Congress of Experimental Psychology.56–68Versuche uber abstraktion. Pp.
10.
LongE. R.ReidL. S.HennemanR. H. (1960). An experimental analysis of set: variables influencing the identification of ambiguous visual stimulus-objects. American Journal of Psychology73, 535–62.
