Literature DB >> 19064489

Top-down effects of semantic knowledge in visual search are modulated by cognitive but not perceptual load.

Eva Belke1, Glyn W Humphreys, Derrick G Watson, Antje S Meyer, Anna L Telling.   

Abstract

Moores, Laiti, and Chelazzi (2003) found semantic interference from associate competitors during visual object search, demonstrating the existence of top-down semantic influences on the deployment of attention to objects. We examined whether effects of semantically related competitors (same-category members or associates) interacted with the effects of perceptual or cognitive load. We failed to find any interaction between competitor effects and perceptual load. However, the competitor effects increased significantly when participants were asked to retain one or five digits in memory throughout the search task. Analyses of eye movements and viewing times showed that a cognitive load did not affect the initial allocation of attention but rather the time it took participants to accept or reject an object as the target. We discuss the implications of our findings for theories of conceptual short-term memory and visual attention.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2008        PMID: 19064489     DOI: 10.3758/PP.70.8.1444

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


  21 in total

1.  Working memory and target-related distractor effects on visual search.

Authors:  Alex Bahrami Balani; David Soto; Glyn W Humphreys
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2010-12

2.  Frontotemporal stimulation modulates semantically-guided visual search during confrontation naming: A combined tDCS and eye tracking investigation.

Authors:  Richard J Binney; Sameer A Ashaie; Bonnie M Zuckerman; Jinyi Hung; Jamie Reilly
Journal:  Brain Lang       Date:  2018-04-11       Impact factor: 2.381

3.  Common and distinct neural regions for the guidance of selection by visuoverbal information held in memory: converging evidence from fMRI and rTMS.

Authors:  David Soto; Pia Rotshtein; John Hodsoll; Carmel Mevorach; Glyn W Humphreys
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2011-03-21       Impact factor: 5.038

4.  Semantic guidance of eye movements in real-world scenes.

Authors:  Alex D Hwang; Hsueh-Cheng Wang; Marc Pomplun
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2011-03-21       Impact factor: 1.886

5.  Language is activated by visual input regardless of memory demands or capacity.

Authors:  Sarah Chabal; Sayuri Hayakawa; Viorica Marian
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2022-01-10

6.  Conscious intention to speak proactively facilitates lexical access during overt object naming.

Authors:  Kristof Strijkers; Phillip J Holcomb; Albert Costa
Journal:  J Mem Lang       Date:  2012-11-01       Impact factor: 3.059

7.  Attentional capture of objects referred to by spoken language.

Authors:  Anne Pier Salverda; Gerry T M Altmann
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2011-08       Impact factor: 3.332

Review 8.  Attending to the possibilities of action.

Authors:  Glyn W Humphreys; Sanjay Kumar; Eun Young Yoon; Melanie Wulff; Katherine L Roberts; M Jane Riddoch
Journal:  Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci       Date:  2013-09-09       Impact factor: 6.237

9.  Cognitive load influences oculomotor behavior in natural scenes.

Authors:  Kerri Walter; Peter Bex
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2021-06-11       Impact factor: 4.379

10.  Guidance of attention by information held in working memory.

Authors:  Marissa Ortiz Calleja; Anina N Rich
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2013-05       Impact factor: 2.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.