Visual Search

Wolfe, Jeremy M.

doi:10.1002/9781119170174.epcn213

Cited by 41 publications

(67 citation statements)

References 460 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…We found no differences for accuracy across conditions (see Table 1). RT × set size functions were consistent with patterns reflective of singleton search (average slope of 1.57 milliseconds per item) (Wolfe, 1998). Patterns of RT costs were also similar to those in our previous experiments.…”

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 60%

“…To do so, we employed a visual search paradigm as our primary task, allowing us to isolate impairments to both parallel and serial attention mechanisms. Whereas efficient search for singleton targets is thought to involve parallel, preattentive processes (and less so selective attention), searches that are inefficient are thought to require serial attention processes that rely heavily on selective attention (Wolfe, 1998). Critically, if performance impairments occurred only during inefficient search, it would suggest that secondary task information presented on the GG is largely detrimental to selective attentional processes, perhaps those related to efficiently guiding attention toward the target.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Through the Google Glass: The impact of heads-up displays on visual attention

Lewis

Neider

2016

Cogn. Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In five experiments, we evaluated how secondary information presented on a heads-up display (HUD) impacts performance of a concurrent visual attention task. To do so, we had participants complete a primary visual search task under a variety of secondary load conditions (a single word presented on Google Glass during each search trial). Processing of secondary information was measured through a recognition memory task. Other manipulations included relevance (Experiments 1–4) and temporal onset of secondary information relative to the primary task (Experiment 3). Secondary information was always disruptive to the visual search, regardless of temporal onset and even when participants were instructed to ignore it. These patterns were evident in search tasks reflective of both selective (Experiments 1–3) and preattentive (Experiment 4) attentional mechanisms, and were not a result of onset-offset attentional capture (Experiment 5). Recognition memory for secondary information was always above chance. Our findings suggest that HUD-based visual information is profoundly disruptive to attentional processes and largely immune to user-centric prioritization.

show abstract

Section: Resultssupporting

confidence: 60%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Through the Google Glass: The impact of heads-up displays on visual attention

Lewis

Neider

2016

Cogn. Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In the lab, this diversity of visual search tasks is generally reduced to a search for a single target that may or may not be present amidst some number of distractor items (Wolfe, 1998, 2014). There has been much less exploration of search tasks with multiple types of possible targets or with multiple instances of targets in the same search scene.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hybrid foraging search: Searching for multiple instances of multiple types of target

et al. 2016

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper introduces the “hybrid foraging” paradigm. In typical visual search tasks, observers search for one instance of one target among distractors. In hybrid search, observers search through visual displays for one instance of any of several types of target held in memory. In foraging search, observers collect multiple instances of a single target type from visual displays. Combining these paradigms, in hybrid foraging tasks observers search visual displays for multiple instances of any of several types of target (as might be the case in searching the kitchen for dinner ingredients or an X-ray for different pathologies). In the present experiment, observers held 8–64 targets objects in memory. They viewed displays of 60–105 randomly moving photographs of objects and used the computer mouse to collect multiple targets before choosing to move to the next display. Rather than selecting at random among available targets, observers tended to collect items in runs of one target type. Reaction time (RT) data indicate searching again for the same item is more efficient than searching for any other targets, held in memory. Observers were trying to maximize collection rate. As a result, and consistent with optimal foraging theory, they tended to leave 25–33% of targets uncollected when moving to the next screen/patch. The pattern of RTs shows that while observers were collecting a target item, they had already begun searching memory and the visual display for additional targets, making the hybrid foraging task a useful way to investigate the interaction of visual and memory search.

show abstract

“…Due to limits in processing capacity, different objects in a scene compete for limited processing resources and the control of behavior (Treisman & Gelade, 1980; Wolfe & Pashler, 1998). Although competition between objects can be biased by physical salience, when a target must be located from among a number of similar distractors, selection can also be biased by features of the target that specify uniquely its relevance for behavior (Desimone & Duncan, 1995).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Action properties of object images facilitate visual search.

Gómez¹,

Snow²

2017

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is mounting evidence that constraints from action can influence the early stages of object selection, even in the absence of any explicit preparation for action. Here, we examined whether action properties of images can influence visual search, and whether such effects were modulated by hand preference. Observers searched for an oddball target among three distractors. The search arrays consisted either of images of graspable ‘handles’ (‘action-related’ stimuli), or images that were otherwise identical to the handles but in which the semicircular fulcrum element was re-oriented so that the stimuli no longer looked like graspable objects (‘non-action-related’ stimuli). In Experiment 1, right-handed observers, who have been shown previously to prefer to use the right hand over the left for manual tasks, were faster to detect targets in action-related versus non-action-related arrays, and showed a response time (RT) advantage for rightward- versus leftward-oriented action-related handles. In Experiment 2, left-handed observers, who have been shown to use the left and right hands relatively equally in manual tasks, were also faster to detect targets in the action-related versus non-action-related arrays, but RTs were equally fast for rightward- and leftward-oriented handle targets. Together, or results suggest that action properties in images, and constraints for action imposed by preferences for manual interaction with objects, can influence attentional selection in the context of visual search.

show abstract

Visual Search

Cited by 41 publications

References 460 publications

Through the Google Glass: The impact of heads-up displays on visual attention

Through the Google Glass: The impact of heads-up displays on visual attention

Hybrid foraging search: Searching for multiple instances of multiple types of target

Action properties of object images facilitate visual search.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About