Literature DB >> 18665726

Set-size effects for identification versus localization depend on the visual search task.

Tom Busey1, John Palmer.   

Abstract

In both behavior and neuroscience research, it is debated whether the processing of identity and location is closely bound throughout processing. One aspect of this debate is the possibly privileged processing of identity or location. For example, processing identity may have unlimited capacity, while processing location does not. The authors have investigated the possibility of such privileged processing by measuring set-size effects for a variety of identification and localization tasks. In particular, set-size effects in accuracy visual search are measured with either 1 or 2 possible targets. For 1-target tasks, set-size effects are smaller for identification than localization; for 2-target tasks, set-size effects are larger for identification than localization. The observed crossover interaction is inconsistent with a privileged processing hypothesis for either identity or location. Furthermore, this interaction is predicted by an independent channel model based on signal detection theory, in which the details of each decision determine the relative magnitude of the set-size effects. This result is consistent with the similar processing of identity and location, and it refutes the privileged processing hypothesis for either identity or location.

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18665726     DOI: 10.1037/0096-1523.34.4.790

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


  10 in total

1.  Does precision decrease with set size?

Authors:  Helga Mazyar; Ronald van den Berg; Wei Ji Ma
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2012-06-08       Impact factor: 2.240

2.  Attention searches nonuniformly in space and in time.

Authors:  Laura Dugué; Douglas McLelland; Mathilde Lajous; Rufin VanRullen
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2015-11-23       Impact factor: 11.205

3.  Using a filtering task to measure the spatial extent of selective attention.

Authors:  John Palmer; Cathleen M Moore
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2008-04-10       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  Divided attention limits perception of 3-D object shapes.

Authors:  Alec Scharff; John Palmer; Cathleen M Moore
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-02-12       Impact factor: 2.240

5.  Independence is elusive: set size effects on encoding precision in visual search.

Authors:  Helga Mazyar; Ronald van den Berg; Robert L Seilheimer; Wei Ji Ma
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-04-10       Impact factor: 2.240

6.  Extending the simultaneous-sequential paradigm to measure perceptual capacity for features and words.

Authors:  Alec Scharff; John Palmer; Cathleen M Moore
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 3.332

7.  Do People Take Stimulus Correlations into Account in Visual Search?

Authors:  Manisha Bhardwaj; Ronald van den Berg; Wei Ji Ma; Krešimir Josić
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-03-10       Impact factor: 3.240

8.  Evidence for unlimited capacity processing of simple features in visual cortex.

Authors:  Alex L White; Erik Runeson; John Palmer; Zachary R Ernst; Geoffrey M Boynton
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 2.240

9.  Evidence of fixed capacity in visual object categorization.

Authors:  Alec Scharff; John Palmer; Cathleen M Moore
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2011-08

10.  A major role for retrieval and/or comparison in the set-size effects of change detection.

Authors:  James C Moreland; John Palmer; Geoffrey M Boynton
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 2.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.