Searching for conjunctively defined targets.

Egeth, Howard E.; Virzi, Robert A.; Garbart, Hadley

doi:10.1037/0096-1523.10.1.32

Cited by 462 publications

(608 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

533

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This form of attentional control enables us to prioritise incoming signals on the basis of preexisting knowledge, goals, and expectations. Indeed, detecting and responding to information from a scene is facilitated by prior knowledge of important characteristics, such as spatial location (Dosher & Lu, 2000;Posner, Snyder, Davidson, 1980), features (Egeth, Virzi, & Garbart, 1984), or category (Peelen, FeiFei, & Kastner, 2009). Alternatively, bottom-up, or exogenous, stimulus-driven selection, reflects the control of attention by the physical properties of a stimulus.…”

Section: Learning To Attend: Effects Of Predictiveness On Perception mentioning

confidence: 99%

Automaticity and cognitive control in the learned predictiveness effect.

Shone¹,

Harris²,

Livesey³

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In novel contexts, learning is biased toward cues previously experienced as predictive compared with cues previously experienced as nonpredictive. This is known as learned predictiveness. A recent finding has shown that instructions issued about the causal status of cues influences the expression of learned predictiveness, suggesting that controlled, volitional processes play a role in this effect. Three experiments are reported further investigating the effects of instructional manipulations on learned predictiveness. Experiment 1 confirms the influence of inferential processes, extending previous work to suggest that instructions affect associative memory as well as causal reasoning. Experiments 2 and 3 used a procedure designed to tease apart inferential and automatic contributions to the bias by presenting instructed causes that were previously predictive and previously nonpredictive. The results demonstrate that the prior predictiveness of cues influences subsequent learning over and above the effect of explicit instruction. However, it appears that the relationship between explicit instruction and predictive history is interactive rather than additive. Potential explanations for this interactivity are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Learning To Attend: Effects Of Predictiveness On Perception mentioning

confidence: 99%

Automaticity and cognitive control in the learned predictiveness effect.

Shone¹,

Harris²,

Livesey³

2015

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To compensate for this the visual system has numerous mechanisms designed to help the selection and processing of relevant information, and the filtering and rejection of irrelevant information. For example, visual mechanisms can prioritise new or recently added information (e.g., Yantis & Jonides, 1984), inhibit already searched or old information (e.g., Klein, 1988;Klein & MacInnes, 1999;Watson & Humphreys, 1997) and form top-down sets for stimuli that match an attentional goal-state (e.g., Egeth et al, 1984;Wolfe, Cave & Franzel;1989;Folk, Remington & Johnston, 1992). Scientists in the laboratory typically investigate human search behaviour by asking participants to find a predefined target item among competing distracter items and recording the reaction times (RTs) and error rates.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Configural Dominant Account of Contextual Cueing: Configural Cues are Stronger than Colour Cues

Kunar

John

Sweetman

2014

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous work has shown that reaction times to find a target in displays that have been repeated are faster compared with displays that have never been seen before. This learning effect, termed 'contextual cueing' (CC), has been shown using contexts such as the configuration of the distracters in the display and the background colour. However, it is not clear how these two contexts interact to facilitate search. We investigated this here by comparing the strengths of these two cues when they appeared together. In Experiment 1, participants searched for a target that was cued by both colour and distracter configural cues, compared with when the target was only predicted by configural information. The resultsshowed that the addition of a colour cue did not increase contextual cueing. In Experiment 2 participants searched for a target that was cued by both colour and distracter configuration compared with when the target was only cued by colour. The results showed that adding a predictive configural cue led to a stronger CC benefit. Experiments 3 and 4 tested the disruptive effects of removing either a learned colour cue or a learned configural cue and whether there was cue competition when colour and configural cues were presented together.Removing the configural cue was more disruptive to CC than removing colour, and configural learning was shown to overshadow the learning of colour cues. The data support a Configural Dominant account of CC, where configural cues act as the stronger cue in comparison to colour when they are presented together.3

show abstract

“…Its application is restricted to situations in which strategic processes are allowed. The possibility of attending selectively to particular subsets of stimuli is open to debate in array-size dependent search experiments (see, e.g., Egeth, Virzi, & Garbart, 1984;Francolini & Egeth, 1979;Kahneman & Henik, 1977, 1981Pashler, 1987;Treisman, 1982). In a search situation such as the one we used, masking before and after stimulus presentation, as well as very short exposure durations, most probably drastically reduce the intervention of filtering strategies of the irrelevant information.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%