Literature DB >> 11281102

Search for multiple targets: remember the targets, forget the search.

T S Horowitz1, J M Wolfe.   

Abstract

Models of visual search performance typically assume that search proceeds by sampling without replacement. This requires memory for each deployment of attention. We tested this assumption of memory-driven search using a multiple-target search paradigm. We held total set size constant, varied the number of targets in the display, and asked subjects to report whether or not there were at least n targets present, where n was varied by block. This allowed us to measure the time to find each subsequent target. Memory-driven search predicts that reaction time should be a linear function of n. The alternative memory-free search hypothesis predicts an accelerating function. The data falsify the memory-driven hypothesis. They were consistent with the memory-free search hypothesis but would also be consistent with memory for a small number of previously attended locations.

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11281102     DOI: 10.3758/bf03194468

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


  20 in total

1.  Search for multiple targets: evidence for memory-based control of attention.

Authors:  Yuji Takeda
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2004-02

2.  A search model and figure of merit for observer data acquired according to the free-response paradigm.

Authors:  D P Chakraborty
Journal:  Phys Med Biol       Date:  2006-07-06       Impact factor: 3.609

3.  Marking rejected distractors: a gaze-contingent technique for measuring memory during search.

Authors:  Christopher A Dickinson; Gregory J Zelinsky
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2005-12

4.  Rapid onset and long-term inhibition of return in the multiple cuing paradigm.

Authors:  Michael D Dodd; Jay Pratt
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2006-04-14

5.  Memory processes in multiple-target visual search.

Authors:  Christof Körner; Iain D Gilchrist
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2006-09-22

6.  Memory for the search path: evidence for a high-capacity representation of search history.

Authors:  Christopher A Dickinson; Gregory J Zelinsky
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2007-05-07       Impact factor: 1.886

7.  No need for inhibitory tagging of locations in visual search.

Authors:  Johan Hulleman
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2009-02

8.  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

9.  The confirmation and prevalence biases in visual search reflect separate underlying processes.

Authors:  Stephen C Walenchok; Stephen D Goldinger; Michael C Hout
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  Visual search elicits the electrophysiological marker of visual working memory.

Authors:  Stephen M Emrich; Naseem Al-Aidroos; Jay Pratt; Susanne Ferber
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2009-11-26       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.