Some differences among figural aftereffects,apparent motion,and paracontrast*

It has been suggested that figural aftereffects, apparent motion, and paracontrast may be produced by very similar or equivalent processes. The empirical functions relating figural aftereffect to the duration of the inspection figure and the interfigural distance are significantly different from the corresponding apparent motion and paracontrast functions. The functions relating paracontrast to the interstimulus interval are significantly different from the corresponding figural-aftereffect and apparent-motion functions. Thus, it is unlikely that the processes underlying the three phenomena are the same. Researchers who attempt to study feature analyzers in the human visual system should consider using more than one dependent variable, since none of the three phenomena contains all of the available information. Within-Ss designs should be avoided because a strong response bias exists between figural-aftereffect and apparent-motion tasks.     

Differential specialization of the cerebral hemispheres for the perception of sameness and difference

The Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218 Pairs of letters were presented 4 deg left or right of fixation, and Ss were asked to indicate as quickly as possible whether the letters in a pair were the same or different. Reaction times for “different” responses were faster when stimuli were in the left visual field than in the right, but reaction times for “same” responses were faster when stimuli were in the right visual field than in the left. These results may indicate that the right hemisphere is better specialized for difference detection, while the left hemisphere is better specialized for sameness detection.     

Mediating interpersonal expectancies via vocal cues: Differential speech intensity as a means of social influence

Differential vocal emphasis in the tape-recorded instruction reading for a standard person perception task was manipulated by mechanically raising or lowering the volume of the key words describing the success or failure response alternatives on the rating scale. In a series of three experiments, Ss exposed to success emphasis in the instructions rated the stimulus persons as more successful than did Ss exposed to failure emphasis. This trend was reversed for Ss who listened twice to the instructions. None of the Ss reported awareness of the influence attempt.     

An experimental test of Jameson and Hurvich’s theory of brightness contrast1

Two hundred and fifty-two brightness functions for seven simultaneously presented black, gray, and white squares on black, gray, and white backgrounds approximated power curves with positive exponents when illuminance was varied in seven steps over 1.9 log fL. Mean exponents were significantly larger for whiter vs blacker squares and for squares on the white vs the gray background. Mean exponents also increased more for squares on white than on black or gray backgrounds. Finally, a white replacing a black background elicited increasingly larger décrémentai responses as the squares varied from black to white. Jameson and Hurvich’s opponent-process theory, tested by the experiment, was not predictive.     

Verbal interference in a perceptual comparison task

When Ss had to indicate if the colors of pairs of items from the Stroop test were the same or different, the usual interference effect was completely eliminated. However, when the verbal information consisted of SAME and DIFF rather than color names, interference was reestablished. This indicates that the perceptual comparison task does not eliminate interference simply by rendering Ss insensitive to the meanings of words.