Literature DB >> 10089762

Intra- and cross-dimensional visual search for single-feature targets.

A Cohen1, H Magen.   

Abstract

Cross-dimensional visual search for single-feature targets that differed from the distractors along two dimensions (color and orientation) was compared with intradimensional search for targets that differed from the distractors along a single dimension (either orientation or color). The design of the first three experiments differed from those of previous studies in that participants were required to respond differently to each of the targets. Experiments 1-3 were similar except that in Experiment 1, the distractors were homogeneous; in Experiment 2, two types of distractors were used in equal proportions; and in Experiment 3, two types of distractors were used but one of the distractors was a singleton. The findings, contrary to those of previous studies, revealed that cross-dimensional search is at least as efficient and for some targets even more efficient than intradimensional search. These results suggest that the details of stimulus-to-response mapping are essential in comparing intra- and cross-dimensional tasks. Experiment 4 used a priming design and did not support an explanation based on grouping processes. We outline an explanation for all the findings based on a recent cross-dimensional response selection model by Cohen and Shoup (1997).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10089762     DOI: 10.3758/bf03206889

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 0031-5117


  11 in total

1.  Testing a postselectional account of across-dimension switch costs.

Authors:  Stefanie I Becker
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2010-12

2.  Searching from the top down: ageing and attentional guidance during singleton detection.

Authors:  Wythe L Whiting; David J Madden; Thomas W Pierce; Philip A Allen
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  2005-01

3.  Does contextual cuing guide the deployment of attention?

Authors:  Melina A Kunar; Stephen Flusberg; Todd S Horowitz; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2007-08       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Dimension- and space-based intertrial effects in visual pop-out search: modulation by task demands for focal-attentional processing.

Authors:  Joseph Krummenacher; Hermann J Müller; Michael Zehetleitner; Thomas Geyer
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2008-12-10

5.  Incidental learning speeds visual search by lowering response thresholds, not by improving efficiency: evidence from eye movements.

Authors:  Michael C Hout; Stephen D Goldinger
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2011-05-16       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Priming of pop-out modulates attentional target selection in visual search: behavioural and electrophysiological evidence.

Authors:  Martin Eimer; Monika Kiss; Theodore Cheung
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2009-11-04       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  Electrophysiological markers of visual dimension changes and response changes.

Authors:  Thomas Töllner; Klaus Gramann; Hermann J Müller; Monika Kiss; Martin Eimer
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2008-06       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  A salient and task-irrelevant collinear structure hurts visual search.

Authors:  Chia-Huei Tseng; Li Jingling
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2015-04-24       Impact factor: 3.240

9.  The role of task-related learned representations in explaining asymmetries in task switching.

Authors:  Ayla Barutchu; Stefanie I Becker; Olivia Carter; Robert Hester; Neil L Levy
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-16       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  What pops out in positional priming of pop-out: insights from event-related EEG lateralizations.

Authors:  Ahu Gokce; Thomas Geyer; Kathrin Finke; Hermann J Müller; Thomas Töllner
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2014-07-02
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.