Eye movements during parallel–serial visual search.

Zelinsky, Gregory J.; Sheinberg, David L.

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.23.1.244

Cited by 199 publications

(213 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

178

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Contrary to the predictions of the no-guidance hypothesis, initial saccade latencies to novel distractors were not significantly shorter than those to old distractors [F(1,11) 0.07, n.s.]. And although we did find an increase in latency with set size [F(2,22) 6.92, p .01] (see also Zelinsky & Sheinberg, 1997) and an interaction between set size and novelty [F(2,22) 4.00, p .05], the direction of this interaction was opposite to that of the prediction: The latency difference between novel and old distractors increased with set size, with latencies to novel Eye-movement data. Our expectation was that search would be guided more efficiently to new distractors than to old ones and that familiar distractors would show an intermediate level of guidance.…”

Section: Methodscontrasting

confidence: 54%

“…Conversely, search becomes less efficient as target-distractor similarity increases, presumably because these target-like distractors are competing more strongly with the actual target for attention (e.g., Duncan & Humphreys, 1989;Wolfe, 1994). More direct support for this relationship has come from studies of eye movements during search, which have shown that the likelihood of a distractor being fixated increases with the number of features that it shares with a target (D. E. Williams & Reingold, 2001;Zelinsky, 2008;Zelinsky & Sheinberg, 1997; see also L. G. Williams, 1966, for an early observation). In addition to generally supporting the role of target-related guidance in search, such analyses of distractor fixations also enable one to identify the target features that are most important for guidance (e.g., Motter & Belky, 1998;Pomplun, 2006;Rutishauser & Koch, 2007; see also Tatler, Baddeley, & Gilchrist, 2005).…”

mentioning

confidence: 84%

“…Oculomotor measures of search have proven to be a highly sensitive means of observing guidance during the ongoing search task and have become an important supplement to manual search measures Motter & Belky, 1998;Zelinsky, 1996;Zelinsky, Rao, Hayhoe, & Ballard, 1997;Zelinsky & Sheinberg, 1997). To determine whether search was preferentially guided to the new distractor in each of our distractors being longer than those to old distractors in the 12-item condition, not shorter.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A new look at novelty effects: Guiding search away from old distractors

Yang

Chen

Zelinsky

2009

Attention, Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We examined whether search is guided to novel distractors. In Experiment 1, subjects searched for a target among one new and a variable number of old distractors. Search displays in Experiment 2 consisted of an equal number of new, old, and familiar distractors (the latter repeated occasionally). We found that eye movements were preferentially directed to a new distractor on target-absent trials and that subjects tended to immediately fixate a new distractor after leaving the target on target-present trials. In both cases, first fixations on old distractors were consistently less frequent than could be explained by chance. We interpret these patterns as evidence for negative guidance: Subjects learn the visual features associated with the set of old distractors and then guide their search away from these features, ultimately resulting in the preferential fixation of novel distractors.

show abstract

Section: Methodscontrasting

confidence: 54%

mentioning

confidence: 84%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A new look at novelty effects: Guiding search away from old distractors

Yang

Chen

Zelinsky

2009

Attention, Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other researchers seem to assume that understanding eye movement behavior in visual search may not be particularly important. However, many studies (Binello, Mannen, & Ruddock, 1995;Findlay, 1995Findlay, , 1997Gilchrist, Findlay, & Heywood, in press;Gould, 1973;Miller, 1978;Motter & Belky, 1998aPonsoda, Scott, & Findlay, 1995;Previc, 1996;Scialfa & Joffe, 1998;Scialfa, Thomas, & Joffe, 1994;Scinto, Pillalamarri, & Karsh, 1986;Staller & Sekuler, 1980;Togami, 1984;Williams, Reingold, Moscovitch, & Behrmann, 1997;Zelinsky, 1996;Zelinsky, Rao, Hayhoe, & Ballard, 1997;Zelinsky & Sheinberg, 1997) have indicated that eye movement data yield important information about visual search. Indeed, Findlay and Gilchrist (1998) argued that the tradition to pay little attention to eye movements in search research is misguided, and they demonstrated that when viewers are free to move their eyes, no additional covert attentional scanning Occurs. Whereas most studies of eye movements during visual search have examined complex search tasks, some (Findlay, 1997;Ottes, Van Gisbergen, & Eggermont, 1985;Viviani & Swensson, 20 Recent studies by Jordan, Patching, and Milner (1998) and Patching and Jordan (in press) have demonstrated that when fixation location is not ensured by an eye-tracking system, central fixations occurred on only 23% of trials.…”

Section: Eye Movements and Visual Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research.

Rayner

1998

Psychological Bulletin

6,014

231

5,590

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Recent studies of eye movements in reading and other information processing tasks, such as music reading, typing, visual search, and scene perception, are reviewed. The major emphasis of the review is on reading as a specific example of cognitive processing. Basic topics discussed with respect to reading are (a) the characteristics of eye movements, (b) the perceptual span, (c) integration of information across saccades, (d) eye movement control, and (e) individual differences (including dyslexia). Similar topics are discussed with respect to the other tasks examined. The basic theme of the review is that eye movement data reflect moment-to-moment cognitive processes in the various tasks examined. Theoretical and practical considerations concerning the use of eye movement data are also discussed.Many studies using eye movements to investigate cognitive processes have appeared over the past 20 years. In an earlier review, I (Rayner, 1978b) argued that since the mid-1970s we have been in a third era of eye movement research and that the success of research in the current era would depend on the ingenuity of researchers in designing interesting and informative studies. It would appear from the vast number of studies using eye movement data over the past 20 years that research in this third era is fulfilling the promise inherent in using eye movement behavior to infer cognitive processes. The first era of eye movement research extended from Javal's initial observations concerning the role of eye movements in reading in 1879 (see Huey, 1908) up until about 1920. During this era, many basic facts about eye movements were discovered. Issues such as saccadic suppression (the fact that we do not perceive information during an eye movement), saccade latency (the time that it takes to initiate an eye movement), and the size of the perceptual span (the region of effective vision) were of concern in this era. The second era, which coincided with the behaviorist movement in experimental psychology, tended to have a more applied focus, and little research was undertaken with eye movements to infer cognitive processes. Although classic work by Tinker (1946) on reading and by Buswell (1935) on scene perception was carried out during this era, in retrospect, most of the work seems to have focused on the eye movements per se (or on surface aspects of the task being investigated). Tinker's (1958) final review ended on the rather pessimistic note that almost every-

show abstract

“…These latter studies operate on the logic that because eye movement behavior parallels that of the underlying spatial attention [20,27,33,44,65,66] (but see [43] for a somewhat different view), studying the distribution of eye movements will reveal whether the attentional deficit is best characterized by a gradient or step function. A number of eye movement studies have already characterized the abnormal pattern in patients with neglect and have shown that these patients make fewer ipsilesional than contralesional saccades, are slower to initiate leftward saccades, make multiple small saccades to locate the contralateral target, have prolonged search times for ipsilesional targets and adopt a rightward (rather than leftward) position for starting their visual exploration [8, 15, 19, 30 32, 62].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%