The processing of non-target words: semantic or not?
It is known that people reacting to visual words may be affected by the meaning of accompanying non-target words. On the approach to perception developed by Treisman (e.g. 1986), this is surprising, because meaning might be thought to require analysis of conjunctions of physical features and so should remain uncomputed for non-target words. Treisman's approach does, however, assert that analysis of the target may unleash further processes that would prime the system for detection of related words. If this were so, then presentation of the target earlier than the distractors would increase the effect of the latter; whereas if analysis of non-targets were independent of priming, they might be expected to have a smaller effect when delayed. Further, if the sets of words involved are small and familiar, then individual features of primed non-targets, rather than conjunctions of features, might trigger interference. They might especially do so when spatial separation of target and non-target is small. Five experiments using a paradigm developed by Shaffer and LaBerge confirm that the meaning of non-target words affects response to targets; but (1) this is more true for early than for late arrival of the target; (2) it is affected by target/non-target separation in space; (3) it is true for familiar sets of repeated words but not, in these data, for words used once only in the experiment. It is therefore concluded that the results are more consistent with a Treisman type of explanation than with a theory of universal and automatic full analysis.
Broadbent
D E
DE
University of Oxford, U.K.
Gathercole
S E
SE
D000293:Adolescent; D000328:Adult; D001288:Attention; D003463:Cues; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008875:Middle Aged; D011597:Psychomotor Performance; D011932:Reading; D012660:Semantics; D014796:Visual Perception