Scopolamine and "disinhibition": Effects of delay and stimulus complexity

1976 ◽  
Author(s):  
George A. Heise
Keyword(s):  
Stimulus Complexity

scholarly journals Visual stimulus complexity and food vs. food alone as rewards for rats

1965 ◽  
Vol 3 (1-12) ◽  
pp. 403-404 ◽  
Author(s):  
R. B. May ◽  
K. L. Beauchamp ◽  
S. Pollock
Keyword(s):  
Visual Stimulus ◽  
Stimulus Complexity

STIMULUS COMPLEXITY, EEG ABUNDANCE GRADIENTS, AND DETECTION EFFICIENCY IN A VISUAL RECOGNITION TASK

1975 ◽  
Vol 66 (3) ◽  
pp. 289-298 ◽  
Author(s):  
ANTHONY GALE ◽  
GRAHAM SPRATT ◽  
BRUCE CHRISTIE ◽  
ADRIAN SMALLBONE
Keyword(s):  
Visual Recognition ◽  
Detection Efficiency ◽  
Recognition Task ◽  
Stimulus Complexity

Matching Forms as a Function of Complexity, Type of Match, and Retention Interval

1976 ◽  
Vol 43 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1299-1302
Author(s):  
Virginia Brabender ◽  
Christopher Clay
Keyword(s):  
Retention Interval ◽  
Visual Processing ◽  
Present Experiment ◽  
Low Complexity ◽  
Stimulus Complexity ◽  
High Complexity

The present experiment tested the hypothesis that nominal processing increases as stimulus complexity increases. Subjects indicated whether two 4- or 12-sided forms, separated by an interval of .5 or 4.0 sec., were the same or different. “Same” responses corresponded to matches for physical or nominal identity. Longer RTs for high complexity than low complexity forms suggest that complexity affects the efficiency of visual processing rather than the occurrence of nominal processing. An interaction between type of match and interval, due to the longer RTs for matches of nominally identical forms at only the .5-sec. interval, indicates that at this interval, matches for physical and nominal identity are made with visual and nominal representations respectively.

Pleasingness vs Interestingness of Visual Stimuli with Controlled Complexity: Their Relationship to Looking Time as a Function of Exposure Time

1975 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-7 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerda Smets
Keyword(s):  
Exposure Time ◽  
Binocular Rivalry ◽  
Stimulus Pair ◽  
Significant Interaction ◽  
Visual Stimuli ◽  
The Other ◽  
Stimulus Complexity

Ss take more time to perceive interesting/displeasing stimuli than uninteresting/pleasing ones. This is consistent with the results of former experiments. However we used a different operationalization of looking time, based on binocular rivalry. Each of six stimulus pairs was presented in a stereoscope. One member of each pair was interesting but displeasing in comparison to the other member. Stimulus complexity was under control. Due to binocular rivalry Ss perceived only one pattern a time. 20 Ss were asked to indicate which pattern they actually saw by pushing two buttons. For each stimulus pair was registered how long each button was pushed during each of six successive minutes. Unlike other operationalizations this one is less dependent on S's determination of what stimulus will be looked at or for how long. It has the advantage that it is bound up more exclusively with relations of similarity and dissimilarity between stimulus elements. It allows manipulation of exposure time in a systematic and continuous way. There is no significant interaction between looking and exposure time.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document