Automatic detection, consistent mapping, and training

Abstract

Results from two experiments showed that a flat display-size function was found under the consistent mapping (CM) condition despite the facts that there was no extensive CM training and that the stimulus-response (S-R) consistency was only an intrasession manipulation. A confounding factor might be responsible for the fact that the consistent and the varied S-R mapping conditions gave rise to different display-size functions in Schneider and Shiffrin’s (1977) study. Their claim that automatic detection and controlled search are qualitatively different is also discussed. © 1986, Psychonomic Society, Inc.. All rights reserved.