Sequential (vs. simultaneous) presentation of two letters in a physical-identity matching task enhanced the fast-same effect, but did not reduce the preponderance of false-"different" errors or the effect of visual similarity. Thus, the sequential enhancement of the fast-same effect involves an increased efficiency in encoding (d') owing to letter repetition, as Proctor claimed, rather than a criterion shift (β), and it involves the visual code rather than the name code. The increased efficiency in detecting sameness with sequential presentation might result from spatial separation (e.g., reduced lateral interference and self-termination), though, rather than temporal separation (e.g., priming), However, such spatial factors as letter size and interletter spacing had no consistent effect on the speed advantage for same pairs, and it was concluded that temporal, not spatial, separation enhances the fast-same effect on sequential trials, Consistent with the response-competition model (Eriksen, O'Hara, & Eriksen), responses were slower and more errorful to similar than to dissimilar different pairs, and were equally fast to dissimilar and same pairs on simultaneous trials. © 1984 Psychonomic Society, Inc.
CITATION STYLE
Chignell, M. H., & Krueger, L. E. (1984). Further evidence for priming in perceptual matching: Temporal, not spatial, separation enhances the fast-same effect. Perception & Psychophysics, 36(3), 257–265. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206367
Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.