No need for inhibitory tagging of locations in visual search

Hulleman, Johan

doi:10.3758/pbr.16.1.116

Cited by 23 publications

(45 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…With these smaller set sizes, search slopes for moving and static stimuli were similar, aligning the results of MAD search to those from other previous search tasks (e.g. Hulleman, 2009). In this experiment, again there was no difference in blinking versus non-blinking search slopes and error rates were reduced.…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 85%

“…In contrast, others have argued that although there is no cost to searching moving stimuli, neither is there a benefit. Hulleman (2009) found no difference in search efficiency between searching through static targets compared with moving ones. In his study search slopes to find a target in a display where all the elements were static did not differ from search slopes in displays where all the stimuli moved at a constant rate of 3.6, 7.2 or 10.8 degrees per second (see also Horowitz & Rich, 2007).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 76%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Visual search in a multi-element asynchronous dynamic (MAD) world.

Kunar

Watson

2011

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In visual search tasks participants search for a target among distractors in strictly controlled displays. We show that visual search principles observed in these tasks do not necessarily apply in more ecologically valid search conditions, using dynamic and complex displays. A Multi-element Asynchronous Dynamic (MAD) visual search was developed where the stimuli could either be moving, stationary and/or changing in luminance. The set sizes were high and participants did not know the specific target template. Experiments 1 -4 showed that, contrary to previous studies, search for moving items was less efficient than search for static items and targets were missed a high percentage of the time. However, error rates were reduced when participants knew the exact target template (Experiment 5) and the difference in search efficiency for moving and stationary targets disappeared when lower set sizes were used (Experiment 6). In all experiments there was no benefit to finding targets defined by a luminance change. The data show that visual search principles previously shown in the literature do not apply to these more complex and 'realistically' driven displays.3

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 85%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 76%

Visual search in a multi-element asynchronous dynamic (MAD) world.

Kunar

Watson

2011

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In standard MAD search, search slopes for moving targets were less efficient than search slopes for static targets (Kunar & Watson, 2011, see also Experiment 1 here). However, with time and knowledge search slopes for moving targets were now no different to those of static targets (see also Hulleman, 2009). …”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Contrary to findings from simpler search tasks, having an item move does not provide a search benefit in these more dynamic environments (Franconeri & Simons, 2003;Hillstrom & Yantis, 1994;McLeod et al, 1988;Yantis & Egeth, 1999, although see Abrams & Christ, 2003, who suggest that it is the onset of motion that captures attention, rather than motion cues, per se and Hillstrom &Egeth, 1999, who suggest that attentional capture of moving items depends on search conditions). Neither does it leave the search slopes unaffected (Hulleman, 2009) -search for a moving target was worse than search for a static one. One could argue that search for a moving item was worse than search for a static item because perceptually a moving target may be more difficult to read than a static target.…”

Section: -------------------------------------mentioning

confidence: 99%

When are abrupt onsets found efficiently in complex visual search? Evidence from multielement asynchronous dynamic search.

Kunar

Watson

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous work has found that search principles derived from simple visual search tasks do not necessarily apply to more complex search tasks. Using a Multi-element Asynchronous Dynamic (MAD) visual search task, where high numbers of stimuli could either be moving, stationary and/or changing in luminance, Kunar and Watson (2011) found that, unlike previous work, participants missed a high number of targets with search for moving items worse than for static and no benefit for finding targets that showed a luminance onset. Here we investigate why luminance onsets do not capture attention and whether luminance onsets can ever capture attention in MAD search. Experiment 1 investigated whether blinking stimuli, which abruptly offset for 100 ms before re-onsetting again -conditions known to produce attentional capture in simpler visual search tasks -captured attention in MAD search, while Experiments 2 -5 investigated whether giving participants advance knowledge and pre-exposure to the blinking cues produced efficient search for blinking targets. Experiments 6 -9 investigated whether unique luminance onsets, unique motion or unique stationary items captured attention. The results found that luminance onsets only captured attention in MAD search when they were unique, consistent with a top-down unique feature hypothesis.

show abstract

“…Hulleman (2009) recently demonstrated that search efficiency was more or less unaffected when the 6 to 18 items in an array moved continuously in random directions. Whereas we agree with Hulleman's conclusion that "items do not have to remain in the same location for visual search to work," (p. 118; see also Shore & Klein, 2000), we do not agree with the inference that "inhibitory tagging occurs only when the items remain static; whenever the items are mov- …”

Section: Ior As Foraging Facilitator In Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Inhibition of return in static but not necessarily in dynamic search

Wang

Zhang

Klein

2010

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

76Inhibition of return (IOR) was first discovered by Posner and Cohen (1984; for a review, see Klein, 2000). Most scholars have explored IOR using the model task pioneered by Posner in which targets requiring simple responses are preceded by nonpredictive cues. Typically, at short cuetarget onset asynchrony (CTOA), response times (RTs) to targets appearing at a previously cued location are shorter than for targets appearing at an uncued location. However, at long CTOA, the pattern is reversed and RTs to targets presented at a cued location are longer than those to targets presented at an uncued location. In their seminal study, Posner and Cohen proposed that the function of IOR is to encourage orienting toward novel items.Visual search is a widely used paradigm in attention research. In a typical search task, participants are asked to search for a target among a group of distractors. The target may be present or absent in the array of items, and the participant makes a present/absent decision. When the search task is easy, the target "pops out" of the array, and RT is relatively unaffected by the number of items presented (set size). In contrast, when the search task is more difficult, RT increases, usually linearly, with the size of the array, and the slope of the RT set size function on target-absent trials is steeper than that on target-present trials. To avoid a theoretical commitment-and although recognizing that using two labels implies a dichotomy when a continuum of difficulty might provide a more accurate characterization-we will refer to these two types of search tasks as "easy" and "difficult," respectively. As for the prototypical pattern of results with difficult search tasks, two broad classes of theory have been advanced to explain the effect of set size on RT. One class of theory (e.g., Broadbent, 1987;Ratcliff, 1978;Townsend, 1974) asserts that information is processed or accumulated in "parallel" across all the items in the array, and a response is issued once enough evidence has been accumulated for either the "present" or "absent" decision. A second class of theory (Treisman & Gelade, 1980;Wolfe, 1994;Wolfe, Cave, & Franzel, 1989) asserts that individual items in the array or regions containing a small number of items are inspected serially by an attentional operator to determine whether the item is a target, or whether the region contains one. The linear relationship between RT and set size, and the finding that the slopes for target-absent trials are often approximately twice those of target-present trials, are straightforward consequences of this serial, selfterminating search strategy. (We will refer to these two classes of theory on how difficult search is accomplished as parallel and serial, respectively.) Although serial theories implicitly assume that, once rejected as distractors in difficult search tasks, items are not (or not likely to be) reinspected, originally no explicit mechanism was described that would prevent or discourage such reinspections (but see Koch & Ullman, 1985). ...

show abstract

No need for inhibitory tagging of locations in visual search

Cited by 23 publications

References 27 publications

Visual search in a multi-element asynchronous dynamic (MAD) world.

Visual search in a multi-element asynchronous dynamic (MAD) world.

When are abrupt onsets found efficiently in complex visual search? Evidence from multielement asynchronous dynamic search.

Inhibition of return in static but not necessarily in dynamic search

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About