Literature DB >> 1593236

Beyond the search surface: visual search and attentional engagement.

J Duncan1, G Humphreys.   

Abstract

Treisman (1991) described a series of visual search studies testing feature integration theory against an alternative (Duncan & Humphreys, 1989) in which feature and conjunction search are basically similar. Here the latter account is noted to have 2 distinct levels: (a) a summary of search findings in terms of stimulus similarities, and (b) a theory of how visual attention is brought to bear on relevant objects. Working at the 1st level, Treisman found that even when similarities were calibrated and controlled, conjunction search was much harder than feature search. The theory, however, can only really be tested at the 2nd level, because the 1st is an approximation. An account of the findings is developed at the 2nd level, based on the 2 processes of input-template matching and spreading suppression. New data show that, when both of these factors are controlled, feature and conjunction search are equally difficult. Possibilities for unification of the alternative views are considered.

Mesh:

Year:  1992        PMID: 1593236     DOI: 10.1037//0096-1523.18.2.578

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


  51 in total

1.  Activation and inhibition of stimulus features in conjunction search.

Authors:  H Koshino
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2001-06

2.  A salient distractor does not disrupt conjunction search.

Authors:  D Lamy; Y Tsal
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1999-03

Review 3.  Attentional capture by auto- and allo-cues.

Authors:  Robert Rauschenberger
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2003-12

4.  Processing numerosity, length and duration in a three-dimensional Stroop-like task: towards a gradient of processing automaticity?

Authors:  Valérie Dormal; Mauro Pesenti
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2012-02-01

5.  What are the shapes of response time distributions in visual search?

Authors:  Evan M Palmer; Todd S Horowitz; Antonio Torralba; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2011-02       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Postural costs of performing cognitive tasks in non-coincident reference frames.

Authors:  E V Fraizer; Mitra Suvobrata; Subhobrata Mitra
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2007-10-24       Impact factor: 1.972

7.  Linearly additive shape and color signals in monkey inferotemporal cortex.

Authors:  David B T McMahon; Carl R Olson
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2009-01-14       Impact factor: 2.714

8.  Guided Search 2.0 A revised model of visual search.

Authors:  J M Wolfe
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  1994-06

9.  Sensory gain control (amplification) as a mechanism of selective attention: electrophysiological and neuroimaging evidence.

Authors:  S A Hillyard; E K Vogel; S J Luck
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  1998-08-29       Impact factor: 6.237

Review 10.  Using multidimensional scaling to quantify similarity in visual search and beyond.

Authors:  Michael C Hout; Hayward J Godwin; Gemma Fitzsimmons; Arryn Robbins; Tamaryn Menneer; Stephen D Goldinger
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.