Tachistoscopic Presentation

2012 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Tachistoscopic Presentation

Learning as a Function of Subliminal Reinforcements

1963 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 387-398
Author(s):  
Austin Jones ◽  
Melvin Manis ◽  
Bernard Weiner
Keyword(s):  
Relative Frequency ◽  
Probability Learning ◽  
Linear Trend ◽  
Stimulus Category ◽  
Time Intervals ◽  
Significant Linear Trend ◽  
Tachistoscopic Presentation ◽  
Stimulus Classes ◽  
Learning Trials ◽  
Correct Discrimination

Three studies were conducted to assess the effects of subliminal reinforcements on learning. In the first two, Ss were given a discrimination task in which five geometric forms, repeated over 100 trials, were to be assigned to one of two categories. The categories were unbalanced; four geometric forms comprised one category, the remaining form the other. Response was required on each trial. Immediately after each response, the appropriate reinforcing word, “Right” or “Wrong,” was flashed at a subliminal brightness-contrast In Exp. I, under low motivation (without money incentives), Ss showed no learning of the correct discrimination, nor any evidence of probability learning with respect to relative frequency of stimulus categories. In Exp. II, the above procedure was replicated with money as the incentive. There again was no evidence of discrimination learning, i.e., acquisition of the correct response. There was, however, a significant linear trend ( p < .05) in the proportion of responses made to the more frequent stimulus category; Ss showed an increasing tendency to “match” the relative frequency of their two classes of response with the corresponding two stimulus classes. In Exp. III, Ss who were motivated by a money incentive attempted to guess whether E was thinking of an odd or an even number. Following each response, Ss were reinforced by tachistoscopic presentation of the word “Right” or “Wrong,” at time intervals which were too brief to permit recognition; half of the Ss were positively reinforced for emitting the response “Odd,” and half for the response “Even.” After 100 learning trials had been completed, the reinforcement contingencies were switched for an additional 20 trials, e.g., Ss who had been reinforced for “Odd” were now reinforced for “Even.” Ss in Exp. III showed no evidence of probability learning. Some possible explanations for the conflicting results of Exps. II and III were discussed.

Exposure Duration and Effective Figure-Ground Contrast

1965 ◽  
Vol 17 (4) ◽  
pp. 308-314 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Kahneman
Keyword(s):  
Exposure Duration ◽  
Matching Method ◽  
Apparent Contrast ◽  
Post Exposure ◽  
Tachistoscopic Presentation ◽  
Matching Procedure ◽  
Contrast Matching

The pre-and post-exposure fields in the tachistoscopic presentation are assumed to reduce the apparent contrast of the figure by brightness summation. A matching procedure was used to measure this effect. Apparent contrast rises linearly with duration, but only in the upper range. Further observations confirm the suggestion that the pre-and post-exposure fields retard the formation of bounding contours with a further reduction of apparent contrast at short durations as a result. It is indicated that the contrast-matching method provides a short-cut technique for the measurement of the temporal range of brightness summation.

A Drum for Tachistoscopic Presentation

1955 ◽  
Vol 68 (3) ◽  
pp. 473
Author(s):  
Robert Adamson
Keyword(s):  
Tachistoscopic Presentation

Read-out Times from Iconic Memory in Normal and Retarded Adolescents

1977 ◽  
Vol 44 (2) ◽  
pp. 467-473 ◽  
Author(s):  
Douglas Friedrich ◽  
Terry Libkuman ◽  
Eugene Craig ◽  
Frank Winn
Keyword(s):  
Iconic Memory ◽  
Stimulus Array ◽  
Chronological Age ◽  
Tachistoscopic Presentation ◽  
Variable Duration

The method of limits was used to obtain an estimate of readout times for a sample of 12 normal and 12 retarded subjects matched on chronological age. The procedure required tachistoscopic presentation of a stimulus array (2, 4, or 6 digits) for a variable duration, followed by a post-stimulus cue. The subject's task was to recall the digit indicated by the cue. The results indicated that read-out time (a) increased as the number of digits increased, (b) was longer for retardates relative to normals, and (c) decreased with practice for both intelligence groups. The implications of a read-out deficit in retarded individuals were discussed.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document