El Paradigma de Compatibilidad de los Flancos, a veces llamado de Competición de Respuestas, ha sido utilizado como vara de medir el procesamiento y la atención aplicada a los distractores que lo producen. Una de esas aplicaciones ha sido la que han realizado Eriksen y sus colega para poner a prueba el modelo del zoom de la atención visual. Aquí se discuten y critican tanto los supuestos en los que dscansa ese uso como la propia interpretación que se hace de los resultados experimentales desde el moddo dd zoom. Se propone, además, una interpretación alternativa basada en la eventual captura automática de la atención por parte de los estímulos que aparecen repentinamente en el campo visual.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AverbachE.CoriellA. S. (1961). Short-term memory in vision.Bell System Technical Journal, 40, 309–328.
2.
BrownT. L.Roos-GilbertL.CarrT. H. (1995) Automaticity and word perception: Evidence from Stroop and Stroop dilution effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 21, 1395–1411.
3.
Dalrymple-AlfordE. C.BudayrB. (1966). Examination of some aspects of the Stroop color-word test.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 23, 1211–1214
4.
DyerF. N. (1973). Interference and facilitation for color naming with separate bilateral presentations of the word and color.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 99, 314–317.
5.
DyerF. N.SeveranceL. J. (1973). Stroop interference with successive presentations of separate incongruent words and colors.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 98, 438–439.
6.
EriksenC. W.ColesM. G. H.MorrisL. R.O'haraW. P. (1985). An electro-myo graphic examination of response competition.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23, 165–168.
7.
EriksenB. A.EriksenC. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task.Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143–149.
8.
EriksenC. W.EriksenB. A. (1979). Target redundancy in visual search: Do repetitions of the target within the display impair processing?Perception & Psychophysics, 26, 195–205.
9.
EriksenC. W.HoffmanJ. E. (1972). Temporal and spatial characteristics of selective encoding from visual displays.Perception & Psychophysics, 12, 201–204.
10.
EriksenC. W.HoffmanJ. E. (1973). The extent of processing of noise elements during selective encoding from visual displays.Perception & Psychophysics, 14, 155–160.
11.
EriksenC. W.MurphyT. D. (1987). Movement of attentional focus across the visual field: A critical look at the evidence.Perception & Psychophysics, 42, 229–305.
12.
EriksenC. W.RohrbaughJ. W. (1970). Some factors determining efficiency of selective attention.American Journal of Psychology, 83, 330–343.
13.
EriksenC. W.SchultzD. W. (1979). Information processing in visual search: a continuous flow conception and experimental results.Perception & Psychophysics, 25, 249–263.
14.
EriksenC. W.St. JamesJ. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model.Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 225–240.
15.
EriksenC. W.YehY. Y. (1985). Allocation of attention in the visual field.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 583–597.
16.
EriksenC. W.WebbJ. M.FournierL. R. (1990). How much processing do nonattended stimuli receive? Apparantly very little, but.Perception & Psychophysics, 47, 477–488.
17.
GattiS. V.EgethH. E. (1978). Failure of spatial selectivity in vision.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 11, 181–184.
18.
GlaserM. O.GlaserW. R. (1982). Time course analysis of the Stroop phenomenon.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 8, 875–894.
19.
HagenaarR.VanDERHeijdenA. H. C. (1986). Target-noise separation in visual selective attention.Acta Psychologica, 62, 161–176.
20.
HoffmanJ. E. (1975). Hierarchical stages in the processing of visual information.Perception & Psychophysics, 18, 348–354.
21.
KahnemanD.ChajczykD. (1983). Tests of the automaticity of reading: Dilution of Stroop effects by color-irrelevant stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 9, 497–509.
22.
KahnemanD.HenikA. (1981). Perceptual organization and attention. EnKubovyM.PomerantzJ. R. (Eds.), Perceptual Organization.Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23.
KahnemanD.TreismanA. (1984). Changing views of attention and automaticity. EnParasuramanR.DaviesP. R. (Eds.), Varieties of Attention.Nueva York: Academic Press.
24.
KamletA. S.EgethH. E. (1969). Note on construction of Stroop-type stimuli.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 29, 914.
25.
KerenG. (1976). Some considerations of two alleged kinds of selective attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 105, 349–374.
26.
MerikleP. M.GorewichN. J. (1979). Spatial selectivity in vision: field size depends on noise size.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 14, 343–346.
27.
MurphyT. D.EriksenC. W. (1987). Temporal changes in the distribution of attention in the visual field in response to precues.Perception & Psychophysics, 42, 576–586.
28.
PhafR. H.VanDERHeijdenA. H. C.HudsonP. T. W. (1990). SLAM: A connectionist model for attention in visual selection tasks.Cognitive Psychology, 22, 273–341.
29.
SichelJ. L.ChandlerK. A. (1969). The color-word interference test: The effects of varied color- word combinations upon verbal response latency.The Journal of Psychology, 72, 219–231.
30.
StroopJ. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662.
31.
VanDERHeijdenA. H. C. (1978). Short-term visual information forgetting. Tesis doctoral, Universidad de Leiden.
32.
VanDERHeijdenA. H. C. (1981). Short-term visual information forgetting.Londres: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
33.
VanDERHeijdenA. H. C. (1992). Selective attention in vision.Londres, Nueva York: Routledge.
34.
VanDERHeijdenA. H. C.HagenaarR.BloemW. (1984). Two stages in postcategorical filtering and selection.Memory & Cognition, 12, 458–469.
35.
YantisS. (1988). On analog movements of visual attention.Perception & Psychophysics, 43, 203–206.
36.
YeeP. L.HuntE. (1991). Individual differences in Stroop dilution: Tests of the attention-capture hypothesis.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 715–725.
