Differences between the Visual Perceptions of Letter and Objects both at Global and Local Levels - Lab Report Example

SPSS ANALYSIS AND LITERATURE REVIEW OF POIREL AND NAVON of the The interactions of stimulus differ between the global and the local hierarchical visual attention as previously demonstrated by Navon (1977). The experiment assessed the existing differences between the objects and letters at both the global and local levels perspectives using the GPE concept. Participants drawn from the university students enrolled for the Bachelor of psychological studies. These participants were requested to test themselves using the E-prime software. The results analysed with SPSS software for descriptive and inferential statistics. Findings show significant differences between the objects and letters at global levels with letter stimulus being almost twice the object stimulus. However, at the local level, the differences were not significant. These findings agree with previous studies that reported significant differences between the local and global levels. Although letters were significantly higher than the objects in the global perspective, the local level did not show any significant difference. Perhaps the best explanation could be attributed to the type and size of stimuli used in local level as previously documented. Introduction The concept of global-local feature used in the assessment and application of many psychological perceptions. Some of these perceptions include the neuropsychiatric disorder, emotion, spatial orientation, gender differences, and special perception (Johannes et al., 1996; Evans et al., 2000; Bruyne and Taylor, 2009). Previous studies determined the biases of processing that existed between the global and local features using different perspectives of the study (Poirel, Pineau, and Mellet 2008). Using local-global paradigm in the assessment of visual processing difference could be associated with a person taking a walk to the forest. If such an individual is requested to give, views on whether they saw the forest of the tree first is the best analogy for global precedence effect. The mechanism used in the description of the global visual perception is hugely dependent on the previous work done by Navon (1977). Navon gets the credit with laying the ground on this concept when they came up with the model that got endorsement for the psychological study to the present date. The study involved designing elegant yet standardised compound stimulus using larger letters and referred them as global levels against the smaller letters categorised as local level. These two broad categories formed the basis for visual perception. In such a study, the participants are requested to identify either the local or the global level of the stimuli. Different studies have used the same concept in determining how various variables relate to categories of items under the study. Initial studies showed that the global effect has the advantage because the global stimulus has high chances of faster processing than the local stimulus (Bruyne and Taylor, 2009). However, when the non-target letters exist at the global level especially when unattended, they have been shown to slow the process of detecting the target during the process of examining the detailed information. Such findings referred to as global, local interference. It is from this concept that Navon described these effects as global precedence effects. These descriptions elaborated by the analogy, which stated that individuals would see the trees after first seeing the forest. The forest signifying the global perspective whiles the trees signifying the tree. The GPE phenomenon is not static but can undergo reversal and reduction depending on the variables a study intends to tackle. These may represent the dominant effect of the global information, the meaningfulness of the stimulus, the duration of exposure the visual angle, the positioning of the local element, and the specifics between local variables. According to Poirel, Pineau and Mellet (2008), the nature of stimuli tells us important information on the global precedence effect. The phenomenon characterises the global advantage. The global advantage signifies that presence of a faster global response time than the local response time. Besides, it signifies the effect of the interface from the global distracters when there is an attempt to identify local targets as opposed to the global targets. When individuals get a lengthy exposure to the objects intended for visualisation, they tend to gain a specific memory to that stimulus as previously demonstrated by Poirel, Pineau and Mellet (2008). One variation that affects cognitive studies is the fact that cognitive approaches differ between individuals. It is from such awareness that one is able to perform an array of studies using the concept of GPE. Poirel, Pineau and Mellet (2008), reported that salience to peripheral views directed the search. People differ in responses to different situations or stimulus. In fact, the differences exist in all stages involved in the processing of cognitive information. Previously it has been shown that the range of these differences may vary from the lowest level like when an individual detects a threat to the highest level when a person experiences a mental representation of the world or self. Previous studies that assessed asymmetries across the hemispheric dimensions have elicited interesting findings (Evans et al., 2000). While some studies document supportive evidence that the right-hemisphere has quantitative lead in the processing of global perception (Yamaguchi et al. 2000), other studies reported contrasting findings by suggesting biases in the left-hemispheric involvement in processing both local and global stimuli (Johannes et al 1996). The main suggestion put forth by these researchers is the fact that the left hemispheric takes a complex perspective through its interaction with the multiple brain structures. Most of the reported studies took a selective attention through a deliberate direction of the participants’ attention toward the collection of data based on the stimulus. However, this study sought to assess the differences between the visual perceptions of letter and objects both at global and local levels Objectives 1. To determine the response differences between the Global targets and the Local targets 2. To determine the response differences between the Letter targets and the non-letter (shape) targets 3. To determine whether the identification of stimuli as meaningful occurs earlier in the processing 4. To determine the differences between the global level and the local level Hypothesis 1. Global targets will be more responded to faster than the local targets 2. Letter targets will be responded to faster than the non-letter (shape) targets 3. Identification of stimuli as meaningful occurs earlier in the processing 4. The differences will be larger at global level than at a local level Method Design The participating students were required to responses to the presence or the absence of the stimuli. The stimuli were grouped into three classes as follows, and letters made of letters, objects made from objects, and non-objects made from the non-objects. Besides, the respondents were directed to search specific stimuli for the target both at local and global levels. The trails were categorised into three types (as target present, target-absent, and target present at the wrong level). Given that the experiment majored on both local and local perspectives, the experiment produced six conditions. Therefore, all the participants were requested to complete the blocks in all block orders. Participants The participants were drawn from the University student community. The students were requested to access the E-Prime software at their convenience and test themselves. The individual information from the students was saved and compiled into a single folder and the data used in the study. Materials The E-Prime software was used in the study. The objects used for the study included the Procedures 1. The participants were requested to download the E-Prime software, and install on the computer, and create an account with the password. 2. The participants were requested to save the individual testing using their registration numbers. 3. The participants were requested to give their respondents on whether the required target was absent or present for each of the stimuli. 4. Stimuli were organised into three classes as follows. Non-object made from the non-objects, objects made of objects, letters made of the letter. 5. The respondents were instructed to search and identify the target as either local or global 6. Trials were organised in three blocks as target absent, target present, and target present at the wrong level 7. Participants were requested to hit a b button whenever they saw an object or a letter stimulus 8. Upon completion of the testing process, the participants were requested to save the final results and later on download the entire file as a zipped folder 9. The data was used for SPSS analysis Results Figure 1: Illustrations of the existing difference between the object and letter both at global and local perspectives The letter stimulus at the global level was significantly different from the object at the same global level. However, there were no significance differences between the letter and object at local perspective. Table 1: Showing the significance differences between the object and letter both at global and local perspectives Source target.type target.level Type III Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig. target.type Linear 3340,527 1 3340,527 ,287 ,593 Error(target.type) Linear 1584874,723 136 11653,491 target.level Linear 115826,805 1 115826,805 12,008 ,001 Error(target.level) Linear 1311844,445 136 9645,915 target.type * target.level Linear Linear 150019,141 1 150019,141 17,159 ,000 Error(target.type*target.level) Linear Linear 1189015,109 136 8742,758 The letter stimulus at the global level was significantly different from the object at the same global level F, 12008(1,136), p0.05. Significance was also reported when objects are paired with the non-objects F, 17159(1,136), p Read More