Literature DB >> 14769068

Response selection in visual search: the influence of response compatibility of nontargets.

Peter A Starreveld1, Jan Theeuwes, Karen Mortier.   

Abstract

The authors used visual search tasks in which components of the classic flanker task (B. A. Eriksen & C. W. Eriksen, 1974) were introduced. In several experiments the authors obtained evidence of parallel search for a target among distractor elements. Therefore, 2-stage models of visual search predict no effect of the identity of those distractors. However, clear compatibility effects of the distractors were obtained: Responses were faster when the distractors were compatible with the response than when they were incompatible. These results show that even in parallel search tasks identity information is extracted from the distractors. In addition, alternative interpretations of the results in terms of the occasional identification of a distractor before or after the target was identified could be ruled out. The results showed that flat search slopes obtained in visual search experiments provide no benchmark for preattentive processing. ((c) 2004 APA, all rights reserved)

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 14769068     DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.30.1.56

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform        ISSN: 0096-1523            Impact factor:   3.332


  7 in total

1.  Basic processes in reading: is visual word recognition obligatory?

Authors:  Evan F Risko; Jennifer A Stolz; Derek Besner
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2005-02

2.  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

3.  THE PERVERSITY OF INANIMATE OBJECTS: STIMULUS CONTROL BY INCIDENTAL MUSICAL NOTATION.

Authors:  Lindsay R Levine; Ezequiel Morsella; John A Bargh
Journal:  Soc Cogn       Date:  2007-04

4.  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

5.  Spatially Guided Distractor Suppression during Visual Search.

Authors:  Tobias Feldmann-Wüstefeld; Marina Weinberger; Edward Awh
Journal:  J Neurosci       Date:  2021-03-02       Impact factor: 6.167

6.  Extra-foveal Processing of Object Semantics Guides Early Overt Attention During Visual Search.

Authors:  Francesco Cimminella; Sergio Della Sala; Moreno I Coco
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-02       Impact factor: 2.199

7.  Response-level processing during visual feature search: Effects of frontoparietal activation and adult age.

Authors:  David J Madden; Rachel E Siciliano; Catherine W Tallman; Zachary A Monge; Andreas Voss; Jessica R Cohen
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 2.199

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.