Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Capacity limitations in visual word processing.

P A Mullin1, H E Egeth

  • 1Department of Psychology, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218.

Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance
|February 1, 1989
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

When are nonwords easy to see?

Memory & cognition·2011
Same author

Using pictographs to enhance recall of spoken medical instructions II.

Patient education and counseling·2001
Same author

Applying cognitive design principles to formatting HRQOL instruments.

Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation·2000
Same author

On the distinction between visual salience and stimulus-driven attentional capture.

Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance·1999
Same author

Goal-directed and stimulus-driven attention in cross-dimensional texture segregation.

Perception & psychophysics·1998
Same author

Goal-directed guidance of attention: evidence from conjunctive visual search.

Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance·1997
Same journal

Human thermal sensitivity drifts at extreme temperatures.

Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance·2026
Same journal

Dynamic competition between selective attention and spatial prediction during visual search.

Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance·2026
Same journal

Encapsulation of the visual perception of social events from semantic priming.

Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance·2026
Same journal

Biasmapping: Idiosyncratic covert search in the vicinity of fixation.

Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance·2026
Same journal

What are you still waiting for? Fricative recognition shows encapsulated processing and is partially predicted by secondary cue reliance.

Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance·2026
Same journal

Eye movements reveal that drivers can predict the location of hazards in dynamic road scenes but gaze and awareness are dissociable.

Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance·2026
See all related articles

This study investigated word processing using redundant target detection tasks. Findings suggest semantic processing capacity is limited, challenging theories of unlimited attention capacity.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Experimental Psychology
  • Neuroscience

Background:

  • Understanding attentional mechanisms is crucial for cognitive psychology.
  • Previous theories suggested unlimited capacity for parallel processing of stimuli.
  • Investigating word processing limitations provides insight into attentional resource allocation.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To examine English word processing in a spatially parallel manner.
  • To determine the capacity limitations of semantic versus structural word analysis.
  • To test the unlimited-capacity, parallel processing hypothesis of attention.

Main Methods:

  • Utilized redundant-target detection tasks with identical and different word stimuli.
  • Employed semantic categorization and lexical decision tasks to assess processing.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Analyzed performance differences to infer processing limitations and interference patterns.

    • Main Results:

    • Limited processing capacity was observed during semantic categorization of identical redundant words.
    • Parallel processing occurred in lexical decision tasks, focusing on structural analysis.
    • Processing interference (redundancy loss) appeared in lexical decision but not semantic tasks with different words.

    Conclusions:

    • Semantic processing capacity is limited, contrasting with structural analysis.
    • Results contradict the unlimited-capacity, parallel processing model of attention.
    • Attentional capacity is constrained, particularly for meaning-based word processing.