Abstract
The initial question was whether subjects could categorize a word semantically before they precisely identified the word itself. This failed to occur. When searching a visual display for a single target word, subjects searched at the same rate whether the distractors were in the same or in a different semantic category. However, when the size of the target set was increased to three, then six, items, subjects increasingly used category information to speed their search rate when targets and distractors belonged to different categories. Subjects appeared to perform the task by comparing the category of each display word to the category of the target set.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Reference Notes
Gleitman, H., Jonides, J., & Friedman, R. B.The cost of categorization in visual search. Incomplete processing of target and field items. Manuscript submitted for publication, 1975.
Jonides, J., Gleitman, H., & Foland, E.The benefit of categorization in visual search: Target location without identification. Manuscript submitted for publication, 1975.
Sternberg, S.Scanning a persisting visual image versus scanning a memorized list. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, April 1967, Boston.
References
Atkinson, R. C., Holmgren, J. E., &Juola, J. F. Processing time as influenced by the number of elements in a visual display.Perception & Psychophysics, 1969,6, 321–326.
Battig, W. F., & Montague, W. E. Category norms for verbal items in 56 categories: A replication and extension of the Connecticut Category Norms.Journal of Experimental Psychology Monograph, 1969,80(3, Pt. 2).
Brand, J. Classification without identification in visual search.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1971,23, 178–186.
Clifton, C., Jr., &Tash, J. Effect of syllabic word length on memory search rate.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973,99, 231–235.
Dick, A. O. Processing time for naming and categorization of letters and numbers.Perception & Psychophysics, 1971,9, 350–352.
Egeth, H. E., Jonides, J., &Wall, S. Parallel processing of multielement arrays.Cognitive Psychology, 1972,3, 674–698.
Ingling, N. W. Categorization: A mechanism for rapid information processing.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972,94, 239–243.
Jonides, J., &Gleitman, H. A conceptual category effect in visual search: O as letter or digit.Perception & Psychophysics, 1972,12, 457–460.
Naus, M. J. Memory search of categorized lists. A consideration of alternative self-terminating search strategies.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1974,102, 992–1000.
Naus, M. J., Glucksberg, S., &Ornstein, P. A. Taxonomic word categories and memory search.Cognitive Psychology, 1972,3, 643–654.
Nickerson, R. S. Response times with a memory-dependent decision task.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1966,72, 761–769.
Nickerson, R. S. Can characters be classified directly as digits vs letters or must they be identified first?Memory & Cognition, 1973,1, 477–484.
Sternberg, S. Memory-scanning: Mental processes revealed by reaction-time experiments.American Scientist, 1969,57, 421–457.
Sternberg, S. Memory scanning: New findings and current controversies.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1975,27, 1–32.
Woodworth, R. S.Psychology (4th ed.), New York: Holt, 1940. P. 40.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Karlin, M.B., Bower, G.H. Semantic category effects in visual word search. Perception & Psychophysics 19, 417–424 (1976). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199402
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03199402