Novelty and conflict in the categorization of complex stimuli

We manipulated categorical typicality and the presence of conflicting information as participants categorized multifeatured artificial animals. In Experiment 1, rule‐irrelevant features were correlated with particular categories during training. In the test phase, participants applied a one‐dimensio...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inPsychophysiology Vol. 45; no. 3; pp. 467 - 479
Main Authors Folstein, Jonathan R., Van Petten, Cyma, Rose, Scott A.
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Malden, USA Blackwell Publishing Inc 01.05.2008
Blackwell Publishing Ltd
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:We manipulated categorical typicality and the presence of conflicting information as participants categorized multifeatured artificial animals. In Experiment 1, rule‐irrelevant features were correlated with particular categories during training. In the test phase, participants applied a one‐dimensional rule to stimuli with rule‐irrelevant features that were category‐congruent, category‐incongruent, or novel. Category‐incongruent and novel features delayed RT and P3 latency, but had no effect on the N2. Experiment 2 used a two‐dimensional rule to create conflict between rule‐relevant features. Conflict resulted in prolonged RTs and larger amplitudes of a prefrontal positive component, but had no impact on the N2. Stimuli with novel features did elicit a larger N2 than those with frequent features. These results suggest limitations on the generality of the N2's sensitivity to conflicting information while confirming its sensitivity to attended visual novelty.
Bibliography:istex:2DDA0BE15B21139D510804327CC23DD760991ADA
ArticleID:PSYP628
ark:/67375/WNG-L0CP21N8-Z
Financial support was provided by the National Institute of Mental Health (MH073703). We are grateful to Dianne K. Patterson, Jonathan Forster, and Paul Krewski for technical support. The experiments formed part of a dissertation submitted in partial requirement for a doctorate in psychology from the University of Arizona. We are grateful to Ken Forster, Rebecca Gomez, and Lee Ryan for serving on the committee, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments on a previous version.
ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ISSN:0048-5772
1469-8986
1540-5958
DOI:10.1111/j.1469-8986.2007.00628.x