Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

It is well known that people can perfectly identify only a handful of distinct unidimensional stimuli, such as line lengths, but can identify thousands of complex stimuli, such as letters and words. This result is consistent with capacity limits in identifying unidimensional stimuli but not complex stimuli. The experiments reported here tested this theoretical dissociation using Luce's (1963) Similarity Choice Model to measure the psychological distance between stimuli in line-length-identification and letter-identification tasks. The psychological distance between line-length stimuli decreased with the number of to-be-identified stimuli; this result is concordant with capacity limits in unidimensional absolute identification. Surprisingly, the opposite result held in letter identification. Psychological distance between letters increased with an increased number of to-be-identified stimuli. This result indicates an opposite type of processing deficit: People process letters more efficiently with more choices.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderson, J.A.

(1991). Why, having so many neurons, do we have so few thoughts? In

W.E. Hockley and S. Lewandowsky

(Eds.), Relating theory and data: Essays on human memory in honor of Bennet B. Murdock (pp. 477–507). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ashby, F.G.

and

J.T. Townsend

(1986). Varieties of perceptual independence. Psychological Review, 93, 154–179.

Edelman, S.

(1995). Representation, similarity, and the chorus of prototypes. Minds and Machines, 5, 45–68.

Gravetter, F.

and

G.R. Lockhead

(1973). Criterial range as a frame of reference for stimulus judgement. Psychological Review, 80, 203–216.

Krushke, J.K.

(1992). Alcove: An exemplar-based connectionist model of category learning. Psychological Review, 99, 22–44.

Landauer, T.K.

and

S.T. Dumais

(1997). A solution to Plato's problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211–240.

Lockhead, G.R.

(1970). Identification and the form of multidimensional discrimination space. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 85, 1–10.

Loomis, J.M.

(1990). A model of character recognition and legibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 106–120.

Luce, R.D.

(1963). Detection and recognition. In

R.D. Luce, R.R. Bush and E. Galanter

(Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 103–189). New York: Wiley.

10.

Lupker, S.J.

(1979). On the nature of perceptual information during letter perception. Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 303–312.

11.

McClelland, J.L.

and

D.E. Rumelhart

(1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception: I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375–407.

12.

Miller, G.A.

(1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.

13.

Monahan, J.S.

and

G.R. Lockhead

(1977). Identification of integral stimuli. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 94–110.

14.

Nelder, J.A.

and

R. Mead

(1965). A simplex method for function minimization. Computer Journal, 7, 308–313.

15.

Nosofsky, R.M.

(1986). Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 115, 39–57.

16.

Nosofsky, R.M.

(1991). Stimulus bias, asymmetric similarity, and classification. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 94–140.

17.

Nosofsky, R.M.

and

T.J. Palmeri

(1997). An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. Psychological Review, 104, 266–300.

18.

Pollack, I.

(1952). The information of elementary auditory displays. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 24, 745–749.

19.

Rouder, J.N.

R. Ratcliff

and

G.M. McKoon

(2000). A neural network model of priming in object recognition. Psychological Science, 11, 13–19.

20.

Townsend, J.T.

(1971a). Alphabetic confusion: A test for models of individuals. Perception & Psychophysics, 9, 449–454.

21.

Townsend, J.T.

(1971b). Theoretical analysis of an alphabetic confusion matrix. Perception & Psychophysics, 9, 40–50.

22.

Townsend, J.T.

and

F.G. Ashby

(1982). Experimental test of contemporary mathematical models of visual letter recognition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 834–864.

23.

Townsend, J.T.

and

D.E. Landon

(1982). An experimental and theoretical investigation of the constant-ratio rule and other models of visual letter confusion. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 25, 119–162.

Absolute Identification with Simple and Complex Stimuli

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References