Feature asymmetries in visual search: Effects of display duration, target eccentricity, orientation and spatial frequency

Abstract

In Experiments 1-3, we monitored search performance as a function of target eccentricity under display durations that either allowed or precluded eye movements. The display was present either until observers responded, for 104 msec, or for 62 msec. In all three experiments an orientation asymmetry emerged: observers detected a tilted target among vertical distracters more efficiently than a vertical target among vertical distracters. As target eccentricity increased, reaction times and errors augmented, and the set size effect became more pronounced, more so for vertical than tilted targets. In Experiments 4-7, the stimulus spatial properties were manipulated: spatial frequency; size; and orientation. The eccentricity effect was more pronounced for vertical than tilted targets and for high- than low-spatial frequency targets. This effect was eliminated when either the size, the size and orientation, or the size and spatial frequency were magnified (M-cortical factor). By increasing the signal-to-noise ratio, magnification reduced the extent of both asymmetries; it aided more the detection of tilted than vertical and of high- than low-spatial frequency targets. Experiments 4-7 indicate that performance improvement in the magnified conditions was due to the specific pairing of stimulus size with retinal eccentricity and not to the larger stimulus size of the magnified conditions. We conclude that stimulus size, orientation and spatial frequency influence the extent of the eccentricity effect and the efficiency of search performance.

The importance of being expert: Top-down attentional control in visual search with photographs

“…Calculated maximum slopes are shown in Table 1. Figure 5 indicates that, on average, targets close to the fixation point were detected more quickly, with average detection times progressively slowing toward the periphery, replicating previous findings (Carrasco, McLean, Katz, & Frieder, 1998). In addition, the number of elements detected at shorter RTs were highest for faces, smaller for objects of expertise, and smallest for control objects.…”

Asymmetry of automatic change detection shown by the visual mismatch negativity: An additional feature is identified faster than missing features

“…For brevity, we will use the terms O and Q stimuli). More recent explanations of search asymmetry attribute the effect to a processing difference in low-level features (Carrasco et al, 1998;Rosenholtz, 2001;Spratling, 2012) or a variability difference between the representations of the stimuli (Saiki, 2008). Considering that the vMMN is a consequence of memory comparison processes (Czigler, 2007;Winkler and Czigler, 2007), we expect a more efficient mismatch process in response to deviant Q stimuli, i.e., an effect similar to the more efficient visual search.…”

Frame effects in visual search for line orientation

“…The circular presentation was used to control the eccentric- ity of all the items from a fixation point centered at the display, since search performance varies considerably with item fixation eccentricity (e.g., Carrasco, McLean, Katz, & Frieder, 1998;Wolfe, O'Neill, & Bennett, 1998). In the LF condition, each line in the display was surrounded by a frame subtending 1.3º in height and width ( Figures 1A-1D).…”