Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. (2 other versions)Controlled and automatic human information processing: Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory.Richard M. Shiffrin & Walter Schneider - 1977 - Psychological Review 84 (2):128-90.
    Tested the 2-process theory of detection, search, and attention presented by the current authors in a series of experiments. The studies demonstrate the qualitative difference between 2 modes of information processing: automatic detection and controlled search; trace the course of the learning of automatic detection, of categories, and of automatic-attention responses; and show the dependence of automatic detection on attending responses and demonstrate how such responses interrupt controlled processing and interfere with the focusing of attention. The learning of categories is (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   804 citations  
  • High-speed memory scan as a retention interval activity in short-term memory.David S. Gorfein - 1974 - Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 3 (4):282-284.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Interpolated task characteristics and interference in short-term memory.Charles P. Bird & George E. Weaver - 1975 - Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 6 (1):93-95.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Irreducibility of sensory experiences: Dual representations lead to dual context biases.Yanmei Zheng, Alan D. J. Cooke & Chris Janiszewski - 2024 - Cognition 247 (C):105761.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Effects of different level processing on retention.Gary F. Meunier, John Millspaugh & Jo Ann Meunier - 1974 - Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 4 (6):562-564.
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark  
  • Attention to Endpoints: A Cross‐Linguistic Constraint on Spatial Meaning.Terry Regier & Mingyu Zheng - 2007 - Cognitive Science 31 (4):705-719.
    We investigate a possible universal constraint on spatial meaning. It has been proposed that people attend preferentially to the endpoints of spatial motion events, and that languages may therefore make finer semantic distinctions at event endpoints than at event beginnings. We test this proposal. In Experiment 1, we show that people discriminate the endpoints of spatial motion events more readily than they do event beginnings—suggesting a non-linguistic attentional bias toward endpoints. In Experiment 2, speakers of Arabic, Chinese, and English each (...)
    Download  
     
    Export citation  
     
    Bookmark   23 citations