Types and frequency of errors in visual search

Kristofferson, Marianne W.

doi:10.3758/bf03206261

Cited by 17 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although this procedure was employed in other studies which have shown an overall effect, these studies have also shown how the effect can be obscured. For example, Kristofferson (1972) reported that search times with an intermediate level of target uncertainty (N = 5) were no different from those obtained with maximum target uncertainty (N = lo), while Gould and Carn (1973) found search times to be longer with an intermediate level than with maximum target uncertainty.…”

Section: Disciissiortmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example. Kristofferson (1972) reported that even after 25 days of practice search times were 30% longer with N = 5 than with N = 1. Gould and Cam (1973) reported a 25% increase forN = 10 overN = 1 after 10 days of practice, and Monk's (1976) results showed an overall increase of 10% as N was raised from 1 to 4. .…”

Section: Disciissiortmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Neisser, Norick, and Lazar (1963) claimed that after considerable practice it took no longer to search for one specified target (N = 1) than for one of ten possible targets (N = 10). However, more recent studies (Kristofferson, 1972) have concluded that if error rates are controlled for, search times are dependent on target uncertainty. In a task requiring subjects to fixate each individual stimulus letter Gould (1973) has shown that eye fixation times increase as a function of target uncertainty.…”

Section: H U M a N F A C T O R Smentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Target Uncertainty and Visual Scanning Strategies

Megaw

Richardson

1979

Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

I i i the past, iiirrstigatioiis into the efficts of target tiricertaiiity oii search h i e s liaia beeii coiifiired to tasks ii4iere tlie stiiiiiiliis iiiaterial is carefiilly strirctirred. The resiilts liatv beeii iiiterpreted i i i teniis of iiiodels o f patteni recogiiitioii. I i i this paper target uiicertaiiity Ii'as sttidied iii tasks where siibjects coiild exert greater freedom iii detenitiiiiiig their scaiiiiiiig strategies. With eye iiioveiiieiit recording, it was established that skewed distribirtioiis of search tiiiies are obtaiiied e w i i i t h i siibjects adopt coiiiparatiisly systeiiiatic strategies. There ii'as iio evideiice that processiiig tiiiie. as reflected i i i eye fixatioii tiiiies, IIWS geiieralh kiigtlieiied ivitli iiicrease i i t target iiiicertaiitty. The obsenvd effects of target tiiicertaiiity were disctissed iii relatioii to liotv strbjects attempt to overcoiiie the probkiii of searching siiiitiltaiieotislj for targets o f diffreiit coiispiciiity.

show abstract

Section: Disciissiortmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Disciissiortmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: H U M a N F A C T O R Smentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Target Uncertainty and Visual Scanning Strategies

Megaw

Richardson

1979

Hum Factors

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When a low error criterion is imposed on the above set of conditions, the search function is altered (Kristofferson, 1972b: Wattenbarger, 1968. The search function is negatively accelerated throughout practice.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

When visual search functions look like item recognition functions

Kristofferson

Groen

Kristofferson

1973

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual search data were collected from six Ss on three target set sizes on each of 30 days. Error level was low, and items assigned to memory sets were nonnested and changed from session to session. For each S. the same item sometimes required a positive and sometimes a negative response (response inconsistency). Combining data over Ss and over successive 6-day blocks. visual search rates as a function of target set size were found to be linear for each of the five 6-day blocks. The slopes of the above functions (memory search time) did not differ significantly over the tmal four 6-day blocks. and averaged approximately .500 sec per six-character item. These results are qualitatively very similar to results obtained from item recognition studies when error level, memory set structure. degree of response consistency. and practice are handled in the same way in that task. The significantly lower slope obtained on the first 6-day block is shown to be consistent with a speed-accuracy tradeoff interpretation when error rate is expressed per unit of processing time (percent errors/set size). Over the fmal three 6-day blocks. where all important parameters of the data were highly stable. the intercepts of the memory search functions were found to closely approximate zero, averaging .0068 sec. From this finding, along with the finding that the memory search functions are linear, it is inferred that visual search time is determined entirely by memory search time, or by memory search time and other processes which increase linearly with set size, under the conditions of this experiment. The estimate of memory search time (approximately 83 msec/character) obtained using this visual search procedure is much slower than that obtained using the item recognition procedure (approximately 35-40 msec/character). An explanation for this difference is proposed.From a series of previous studies (Kristofferson, 1972a, b, c), it appears that the variables sufficient to control and predict the effect of the number of items in the memory set (the positive set size or the target set size) on item recognition time and visual search time are: (1) error level, (2) positive set structure, (3) degree of response consistency, and (4) practice.In the item recognition task, the S must respond "yes" or "no," by pressing the appropriate one of two keys, to indicate whether a presented test item is or is not a member of a predefmed positive set of items. The items are usually digits or letters. The size of the positive set is varied, and response latencies provide the basic data. Item recognition time (response latency) increases as positive set size increases (the item recognition function). The function is linear and has the same slope for both positive and negative responses. Typically, item recognition time is increased by approximately 35-40 msec for each additional item assigned to the positive set. This description of the item recognition function is accurate only for a particular combination of the variables listed above: (I) error level i...

show abstract

“…A. ROBERTSON Manchester Polytechnic,Manchester,England Mi5 5FG Stimulus materials for visual search experimentation of the sort performed by Neisser (1963) and later by Kristofferson (1972) often take the form of lists of, or matrices containing a number of background elements and a number of targets. In this context, elements and targets might well be numbers, letters, words, or other characters or character strings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A note concerning a BASIC displaygenerator for search tasks

Robertson

1977

Behav. Res. Meth. Instru.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Types and frequency of errors in visual search

Cited by 17 publications

References 3 publications

Target Uncertainty and Visual Scanning Strategies

Target Uncertainty and Visual Scanning Strategies

When visual search functions look like item recognition functions

A note concerning a BASIC displaygenerator for search tasks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About