Evaluating perceptual integration: uniting response-time- and accuracy-based methodologies

20Citations
Citations of this article
21Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This investigation brings together a response-time system identification methodology (e.g., Townsend & Wenger Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11, 391–418, 2004a) and an accuracy methodology, intended to assess models of integration across stimulus dimensions (features, modalities, etc.) that were proposed by Shaw and colleagues (e.g., Mulligan & Shaw Perception & Psychophysics 28, 471–478, 1980). The goal was to theoretically examine these separate strategies and to apply them conjointly to the same set of participants. The empirical phases were carried out within an extension of an established experimental design called the double factorial paradigm (e.g., Townsend & Nozawa Journal of Mathematical Psychology 39, 321–359, 1995). That paradigm, based on response times, permits assessments of architecture (parallel vs. serial processing), stopping rule (exhaustive vs. minimum time), and workload capacity, all within the same blocks of trials. The paradigm introduced by Shaw and colleagues uses a statistic formally analogous to that of the double factorial paradigm, but based on accuracy rather than response times. We demonstrate that the accuracy measure cannot discriminate between parallel and serial processing. Nonetheless, the class of models supported by the accuracy data possesses a suitable interpretation within the same set of models supported by the response-time data. The supported model, consistent across individuals, is parallel and has limited capacity, with the participants employing the appropriate stopping rule for the experimental setting.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Eidels, A., Townsend, J. T., Hughes, H. C., & Perry, L. A. (2015). Evaluating perceptual integration: uniting response-time- and accuracy-based methodologies. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 77(2), 659–680. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0788-y

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free