Current Psychology

, Volume 1, Issue 3–4, pp 153–161 | Cite as

Visual and semantic effects in a serial word classification task

  • Vicki Bruce


Subjects were asked to decide as quickly as possible whether each of a series of items was one of the four target words, ‘dog’, ‘rat’, ‘boar’ and ‘mole’. The relationship of distractors to the targets was varied. Distractors which were of high visual similarity to the targets took longer to reject than those which were of lower visual similarity, and distractors which were semantically related to the targets took longer to reject than those which were unrelated. These effects were independent. There was no effect of familiarity, with non-animal distractors and pronounceable non-words rejected equally quickly. These results are qualitatively the same as those earlier found with faces (Bruce, 1979).


Face Recognition Semantic Similarity Visual Search Task Visual Similarity Unrelated Word 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Bruce, V. (1979). Searching for politicians: An information-processing approach to face recognition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 31, 373–395.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Collins, A.M. & Loftus, E.F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic memory. Psychological Review, 82, 407–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Coltheart, M. (1978). Lexical access in simple reading tasks. In G. Underwood (ed.), Strategies of Information Processing. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  4. Ellis, H.D. (1975). Recognizing faces. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 409–426.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Hay, D.C. & Young, A.W. (in press). The human face. In A.W. Ellis (ed.), Normality and Pathology in Cognitive Functions. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  6. Henderson, L. (1978). Pandemonium and visual search. Perception, 7, 97–104.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Henderson, L. & Chard, J. (1978). Semantic effects in visual word detection with visual similarity controlled. Perception and Psychophysics, 23, 290–298.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Karlin, M.B. & Bower, G.H. (1976). Semantic category effects in visual search. Perception and Psychophysics, 19, 417–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Klein, G.S. (1964). Semantic power measured through the interference of words with colour-naming. American Journal of Psychology, 77, 576–588.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Kucera, H. & Francis, W.N. (1967). Computational Analysis of Present-day American English. Providence, Rhode Island: Brown University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Morton, J. (1979). Facilitation in word recognition: Experiments causing change in the logogen model. In P.A. Kolers, M. Wrolstead & H. Bouma (eds.), Processing of Visible Language, Vol. 1. New York: Plenum Publishing.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1981

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vicki Bruce
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of NottinghamNottingham

Personalised recommendations