Abstract
Subjects made forced-choice or go/no-go responses to target letters flanked by noise-incompatible or noise-compatible letters. Noise compatibility had a pronounced effect on RTs, but there was no evidence for any selective effect of type of response on target detection times.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Bjork, E. L., & Murray, J. T. On the nature of input channels in visual processing. Psychological Review, 1911, 84, 472–484.
Corballis, M. C., Roldan, C. E., & Zbrodoff, J. Response set effects in recognition memory. Memory & Cognition, 1974, 2, 501–508.
Eriksen, B. A., & Eriksen, C. W. Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task. Perception & Psychophysics, 1974, 16, 143–149.
Eriksen, C. W., & Eriksen, B. A. Target redundancy in visual search: Do repetitions of the target within the display impair processing? Perception & Psychophysics, 1979, 26, 195–205.
Eriksen, C. W., & Schultz, D. W. Information processing in visual search: A continuous flow conception and experimental results. Perception & Psychophysics, 1979, 25, 249–263.
Krueger, L. E., & Shapiro, R. G. Repeating the target neither speeds nor slows its detection: Evidence for independent channels in letter processing. Perception & Psychophysics, 1980, 28, 68–76.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by grants from Victoria University of Wellington (85/80) and the University Grants Committee (70/51).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
White, M.J. Response selection and visual search. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 18, 201–202 (1981). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03333603
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03333603