Typicality aids search for an unspecified target, but only in identification and not in attentional guidance.
Participants searched for a picture of an object, and the object was either a typical or an atypical category member. The object was cued by either the picture or its basic-level category name. Of greatest interest was whether it would be easier to search for typical objects than to search for atypical objects. The answer was"yes," but only in a qualified sense: There was a large typicality effect on response time only for name cues, and almost none of the effect was found in the time to locate (i.e., first fixate) the target. Instead, typicality influenced verification time-the time to respond to the target once it was fixated. Typicality is thus apparently irrelevant when the target is well specified by a picture cue; even when the target is underspecified (as with a name cue), it does not aid attentional guidance, but only facilitates categorization.
Castelhano
Monica S
MS
Department of Psychology, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada. monica.castelhano@queensu.ca
Pollatsek
Alexander
A
Cave
Kyle R
KR
D001288:Attention; D003463:Cues; D004193:Discrimination Learning; D005133:Eye Movements; D005403:Fixation, Ocular; D006801:Humans; D010364:Pattern Recognition, Visual; D011930:Reaction Time; D012660:Semantics
Psychon Bull Rev. 2001 Sep;8(3):476-88
11700898
Vision Res. 2004 Jun;44(12):1411-26
15066400
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Apr;32(2):423-42
16634680
Percept Psychophys. 1998 Aug;60(6):1067-82
9718964
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2003 Apr;29(2):483-502
12760630
J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform. 2006 Oct;32(5):1243-65
17002535
J Vis. 2005 Feb 09;5(1):81-92
15831069
Neuron. 2000 Jun;26(3):703-14
10896165
J Neurosci. 1994 Apr;14(4):2190-9
8158265
Brain Res. 2006 Mar 29;1080(1):73-90
16510131