Literature DB >> 16615338

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

Christopher A Dickinson1, Gregory J Zelinsky.   

Abstract

There is a debate among search theorists as to whether search exploits a memory for rejected distractors. We addressed this question by monitoring eye movements and explicitly marking objects visited by gaze during search. If search is memoryless, markers might be used to reduce distractor reinspections and improve search efficiency, relative to a no-marking baseline. However, if search already uses distractor memory, there should be no differences between marking and no-marking conditions. In four experiments, with stimuli ranging from Os and Qs to realistic scenes, two consistent data patterns emerged: (1) Marking rejected distractors produced no systematic benefit for search efficiency, as measured by reinspections, reaction times, or errors, and (2) distractor reinspection rates were, overall, extremely low. These results suggest that search uses a memory for rejected distractors, at least in those many real-world search tasks in which gaze is free to move.

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16615338     DOI: 10.3758/bf03206453

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev        ISSN: 1069-9384


  16 in total

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

Authors:  T S Horowitz; J M Wolfe
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2001-02

2.  Influence of attentional capture on oculomotor control.

Authors:  J Theeuwes; A F Kramer; S Hahn; D E Irwin; G J Zelinsky
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1999-12       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Probing distractor inhibition in visual search: inhibition of return.

Authors:  H J Müller; A von Mühlenen
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2000-10       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Visual search has memory.

Authors:  M S Peterson; A F Kramer; R F Wang; D E Irwin; J S McCarley
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2001-07

5.  On the manifestations of memory in visual search.

Authors:  D I Shore; R M Klein
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  2000

Review 6.  Solving the "real" mysteries of visual perception: the world as an outside memory.

Authors:  J K O'Regan
Journal:  Can J Psychol       Date:  1992-09

7.  Visual search remains efficient when visual working memory is full.

Authors:  G F Woodman; E K Vogel; S J Luck
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2001-05

8.  Adjustment of fixation duration in visual search.

Authors:  I T Hooge; C J Erkelens
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1998-05       Impact factor: 1.886

9.  A feature-integration theory of attention.

Authors:  A M Treisman; G Gelade
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1980-01       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Refixation frequency and memory mechanisms in visual search.

Authors:  I D Gilchrist; M Harvey
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2000-10-05       Impact factor: 10.834

View more
  10 in total

1.  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

Review 2.  A theory of eye movements during target acquisition.

Authors:  Gregory J Zelinsky
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 8.934

3.  Been there, seen that: a neural mechanism for performing efficient visual search.

Authors:  Koorosh Mirpour; Fabrice Arcizet; Wei Song Ong; James W Bisley
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2009-10-07       Impact factor: 2.714

4.  Do object refixations during scene viewing indicate rehearsal in visual working memory?

Authors:  Gregory J Zelinsky; Lester C Loschky; Christopher A Dickinson
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2011-05

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.  Refixation control in free viewing: a specialized mechanism divulged by eye-movement-related brain activity.

Authors:  Andrey R Nikolaev; Radha Nila Meghanathan; Cees van Leeuwen
Journal:  J Neurophysiol       Date:  2018-08-15       Impact factor: 2.714

7.  Ketamine-Induced Alteration of Working Memory Utility during Oculomotor Foraging Task in Monkeys.

Authors:  Ryo Sawagashira; Masaki Tanaka
Journal:  eNeuro       Date:  2021-04-06

8.  New Evidence for Strategic Differences between Static and Dynamic Search Tasks: An Individual Observer Analysis of Eye Movements.

Authors:  Christopher A Dickinson; Gregory J Zelinsky
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-01-29

9.  Eye movement feedback fails to improve visual search performance.

Authors:  Chad Peltier; Mark W Becker
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2017-11-22

10.  Simple eye-movement feedback during visual search is not helpful.

Authors:  Trafton Drew; Lauren H Williams
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2017-11-22
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.