English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

In studies using Averbach and Coriell's (1961) partial-report bar-probe paradigm with linear arrays, most errors involve the naming of an item that was in the display but in a position other than the cued one. Up to now, there is no general agreement on the origin of these location errors. Point of departure in this paper is that part of the location errors arises from inappropriate application of the cue. It is tested whether this originates from problems to perceive the position of the cue ("cue-displacement hypothesis") or from confusion about the order of the items in the array ("item-order hypothesis"). The results of two bar-probe experiments are reported. A novel, crucial, finding in both experiments is that, among the location errors, there was a preponderance of response letters that came from the central side of the cued item. In the second experiment, this was observed not only in the usual postcue conditions but also when the cue preceded the array. These results positively corroborate the cue-displacement hypothesis and do not support the item-order hypothesis: The cue tends to be perceived more toward the center of the visual field than it actually is exposed-that is, there is a central drift of the cue.

Location errors in partial-report bar-probe experiments: In search of the origin of cue-alignment problems