Were you paying attention to where you looked? The role of executive working memory in visual search

Peterson, Matthew S.; Beck, Meliss a R.; Wong, Jason H.

doi:10.3758/pbr.15.2.372

Cited by 30 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…From the analyses of fixation locations, we know that many dots were revisited. Although these results suggest that the eyes do not have a perfect memory, it is possible that they have some memory for previous fixations (Beck et al, 2006;Peterson et al, 2008;Peterson et al, 2001). To examine this possibility, we compared the observed proportion of nonimmediate refixations with that predicted by a nomemory model.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When interpreting the difference in intercepts of RT in Experiment 1, we suggested an interpretation in terms of subitizing: Subjects index fewer dots in the count condithe proportion of refixation and reduce search efficiency (Han & Kim, 2004;Peterson et al, 2008). Peterson et al (2008) suggested that attention may move away from one item before processing is completed, so a refixation is necessary to complete processing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Peterson et al (2008) suggested that attention may move away from one item before processing is completed, so a refixation is necessary to complete processing. We suspect that this is also the case for eye movements in counting.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It does not predict that every object will be fixated (unlike the indexing hypothesis). Following precedent in the visual search literature (Beck et al, 2006;Peterson, Beck, & Wong, 2008;Peterson et al, 2001), immediate refixations that are caused by corrective saccades do not contradict the control hypothesis, but nonimmediate refixations that are not caused by corrective saccades do contradict the control hypothesis. Corrective saccades can be identified by the duration of the fixation preceding the saccade, which is shorter than usual, and by the landing point of the saccade, which is closer to the target object than is the original saccade (Henson, 1978;Rayner, 1998).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is the strong version of the control hypothesis. A weaker version allows for nonimmediate refixations (Beck et al, 2006;Henson, 1978;Peterson et al, 2008;Peterson et al, 2001). According to the weak version of the control hypothesis, subjects tend to avoid fixating at the dots they have looked at before, although they cannot do so perfectly.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Where do we look when we count? The role of eye movements in enumeration

Logan

Zbrodoff

2010

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments addressed the coupling between eye movements and the cognitive processes underlying enumeration. Experiment 1 compared eye movements in a counting task with those in a "look" task, in which subjects were told to look at each dot in a pattern once and only once. Experiment 2 presented the same dot patterns to every subject twice, to measure the consistency with which dots were fixated between and within subjects. In both experiments, the number of fixations increased linearly with the number of objects to be enumerated, consistent with tight coupling between eye movements and enumeration. However, analyses of fixation locations showed that subjects tended to look at dots in dense, central regions of the display and tended not to look at dots in sparse, peripheral regions of the display, suggesting a looser coupling between eye movements and enumeration. Thus, the eyes do not mirror the enumeration process very directly.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Where do we look when we count? The role of eye movements in enumeration

Logan

Zbrodoff

2010

Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Eye movements as a gatekeeper for memorization: evidence for the persistence of attentional sets in visual memory search

Huestegge

Koch

2011

Psychological Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attention is known to serve multiple goals, including the selection of information for further perceptual analysis (selection for perception) and for goal-directed behavior (selection for action). Here, we study the role of overt attention (i.e., eye movements) as a gatekeeper for memorization processes (selection for memorization). Subjects memorized complex multidimensional stimulus displays and subsequently indicated whether a specific (probe) item was present. In Experiment 1 we utilized an incidental learning setting where in the beginning only a subset of display stimuli was relevant, whereas in a transfer block all stimuli were possible probe items. In Experiment 2, we used an explicit learning setting within a between-group design. Response times and gaze patterns indicated that subjects learned to ignore irrelevant stimuli while forming memory representations. The findings suggest that complex feature binding processes in peripheral vision may serve to guide overt selective attention, which eventually contributes to filtering out irrelevant information even in highly complex environments. Gaze patterns suggested that attentional control settings persisted even when they were no longer required.

show abstract