TYPES AND TOKENS UNSCATHED - A REPLY

N. G. Kanwisher (1987; J. Park & N. G. Kanwisher, 1994) has explained repetition blindness in terms of a distinction in visual perception be tween type activation and token individuation; repeated items are succ essfully recognized (matched to stored types) but are less likely than unrepeated items to become individuated as separate perceptual tokens . Whittlesea and colleagues (B. W. A. Whittlesea, M. D. Dorken, & K. W . Podrouzek, 1995; B. W. A. Whittlesea & K. W. Podrouzek, 1995) argued that repetition blindness does not reflect different processing of re peated and unrepeated items but is better explained as the result of a combination of separate but nondistinctive processing of repeated ite ms and postlist report biases. However, we argue that none of the resu lts reported by Whittlesea and colleagues are inconsistent with the to ken-individuation hypothesis.