The name is absent

favor neither the rows nor the columns when given a square display. This component of
Merikle's argument will be called the "perceptual grouping" hypothesis.

Whenever the large-capacity finding is obtained with Sperling's (1960) partial-report
task, the partial-report selection criterion is exclusively spatial location. Merikle (1980)
suggested that the perceptual grouping of the items (i.e., a row gestalt) is thus confounded
with the recall (by row) instruction. Hence, partial recall by row is favored. This
component of Merikle's argument will be called the "display-instruction compatibility"
hypothesis.

Figure 1. Three types of stimulus cards used in

Experiment 1. "Row," "column," and "square" cards
are represented in the top, middle, and bottom panels,
respectively.

Using row and column displays, Merikle (1980) instructed different groups of subjects to
recall either by row or by column, when given the partial-report task. The "recall by row"
group was effectively given compatible and incompatible display-instruction
relationships when shown row and column displays, respectively. By the same token, the
"recall by column" group had incompatible and compatible tasks when given row and
column displays, respectively.

Merikle (1980) found that partial-report performance was superior to whole-report
performance at both levels of compatibility. However, the superiority was more
pronounced when the display and instruction were compatible. These observations were
obtained when perceptual grouping was achieved by spatial proximity (Merikle, 1980,
Experiment 1) or by similarity in terms of brightness (Merikle, 1980, Experiment 2). It
was concluded that the display-instruction compatibility definitely contributed to the

<<   1   2   3   4   5   6   >>

More intriguing information