Effects of stimulus probability and visual similarity on stimulus encoding

Visual similarity, stimulus probability, and stimulus contrast were manipulated in two memory-scanning experiments to determine how stimulus probability affects encoding. Two hypotheses were tested: The first, a featural facilitation hypothesis, localizes the effect of stimulus probability on feature extraction; the second claims that stimulus probability has its effect on stimulus recognition. In both experiments, visual similarity was found to slow encoding, particularly under low-contrast conditions. This effect was larger for low probability stimuli than for high probability stimuli and increased as the difference in probability between two visually similar stimuli increased. These results are inconsistent with the featural facilitation hypothesis, but can be explained in terms of differential priming of internal recognition responses for members of the stimulus set, such that more probable members are more easily recognized.     

Effects of gender and topic on speech style

Male and female subjects described nine photographs that had been selected to be of interest to males, females, or both. The resulting speech samples were analyzed for the incidence of five features of word production and five features associated with a women's language (WL) speech style. Results showed that topic (photograph type) determined aspects of speech production. However, there were no gender differences in production or style. Correlations between dependent variables suggested that WL is a consistent set of features. Its use by both female and male speakers may reflect social uncertainty.The authors thank Janis Glenn and Cynthia Johnson for help in collecting and transcribing data.     

Effects of stimulus omission and stimulus change on dishabituation of the skin conductance response

Three experiments examined the effects of stimulus omission and stimulus change on dishabituation of the skin conductance response. In all experiments, subjects received 17 tone-light or light-tone (S1-S2) pairings, and the primary manipulations were omission of and change in S2 on Trial 16. Responses to S1 and S2 on Trial 17 constituted the data of primary interest. Experiment 1 (N = 72) demonstrated that omission of an expected stimulus was more effective in producing dishabituation than was presentation of an unexpected but not experimentally novel stimulus. Experiment 2 (N = 60) indicated that both omission of an expected stimulus and presentation of an unexpected and experimentally novel stimulus produced dishabituation. Experiment 3 (N = 72) revealed that both the omission and the miscuing of 52 produced reliable dishabituation. The results are interpreted as indicating the importance of a comparison between current input and the stored representation of previous stimulation in the development of habituation.     

Effects of stimulus frequency and reinforcement variables on reaction time

Pigeons pecked at one of two black forms, “+” or “O,” either of which could appear alone on a white computer monitor screen. In baseline series of sessions, each form appeared equally often, and two pecks at it produced food reinforcement on 10% of trials. Test series varied the relative probability or duration of reinforcement or frequency of appearance of the targets. Peck reaction times, measured from target onset to the first peck, were found to vary as a function of reinforcement probability but not as a function of relative target frequency or of reinforcement duration. Reaction times to the two targets remained approximately equal as long as the probability of reinforcement, per trial, was equal for the targets, even if the relative frequency of the targets differed by as much as 19 to 1. The results address issues raised in visual search experiments and indicate that attentional priming is unimportant when targets are easy to detect. The results also suggest that equalizing reinforcement probability per trial for all targets removes differential reinforcement as an important variable. That reaction time was sensitive to the probability but not the duration of reinforcement raises interesting questions about the processes reflected in reaction time compared with rate as a response measure.     

Effects of stimulus duration and inter-letter spacing on letter-in-string identification

Effects of stimulus duration and inter-letter spacing were studied in a letter-in-string identification paradigm. Participants were shown strings of 5 random consonants (e.g., PGKDM) centered on fixation and were asked to identify the letter that had appeared at a post-cued location. Stimulus duration was manipulated in Experiment 1 (13 ms–91 ms), and inter-letter spacing manipulated in Experiment 2 (for a fixed stimulus duration of 26 ms). We contrasted performance to outer-letters (positions 1 and 5) with non-central inner letters (positions 2 and 4), the first-letter (position 1) with the final letter (position 5), and the central-letter (position 3) with the other inner letters (positions 2 and 4). The outer-letter advantage and the first-letter advantage were present throughout the entire range of exposure durations, whereas the central-letter advantage increased with longer exposures. On the other hand, increased spacing reduced both the outer-letter advantage and the first-letter advantage, whereas it led to a greater central-letter advantage. Changes in acuity and crowding as a function of stimulus exposure and inter-letter spacing, can account for this pattern of results.     

Effects of stimulus synchrony on mechanisms of perceptual organization

When neurons adopt a synchronized, oscillatory response to stimulus Gestalten, the phase of those oscillations almost always varies relative to stimulus activity. This has been taken to indicate that form-coding mechanisms are synchronized by internal timing mechanisms, and/or may be sensitive to stimulus activity only via motion detectors. This proposal is problematic for interpreting recent demonstrations of the effects of stimulus synchrony particularly when stimuli are stationary. Here we offer an account of stimulus-driven synchronization supported by evidence that segmentation by stimulus synchrony can be relatively insensitive to explicit motion signals. The argument is made that qualitative similarities between the effects of phase-independent and phase-locked oscillations in the EEG, the effects of phase synchronization at the cellular level and evidence for phase-enhanced stimulus grouping should be considered as functionally equivalent. This argument emphasizes the flexibility of temporal synchrony as a code for perceptual organization.