Literature DB >> 19145020

No need for inhibitory tagging of locations in visual search.

Johan Hulleman1.   

Abstract

Participants find it no harder to search for a T among Ls when the items move around at velocities of up to 10.8 degrees/sec than when the items remain static. This result demonstrates that inhibitory tagging of locations is not necessary for successful search, and it provides a challenge to any models of visual search that use a fixed location as the index during accumulation and storage of information about search items.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19145020     DOI: 10.3758/PBR.16.1.116

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


  21 in total

1.  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

2.  Inhibition of return and visual search: how many separate loci are inhibited?

Authors:  J J Snyder; A Kingstone
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2000-04

3.  On the manifestations of memory in visual search.

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

4.  Inhibitory tagging in visual search can be found if search stimuli remain visible.

Authors:  Y Takeda; A Yagi
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2000-07

5.  Attention, spatial representation, and visual neglect: simulating emergent attention and spatial memory in the selective attention for identification model (SAIM).

Authors:  Dietmar Heinke; Glyn W Humphreys
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 8.934

6.  How the deployment of attention determines what we see.

Authors:  Anne Treisman
Journal:  Vis cogn       Date:  2006-08-01

7.  How many objects can you track? Evidence for a resource-limited attentive tracking mechanism.

Authors:  George A Alvarez; Steven L Franconeri
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2007-10-30       Impact factor: 2.240

8.  Tracking multiple independent targets: evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism.

Authors:  Z W Pylyshyn; R W Storm
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1988

9.  Object-based and environment-based inhibition of return of visual attention.

Authors:  S P Tipper; B Weaver; L M Jerreat; A L Burak
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1994-06       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: evidence from visual search.

Authors:  S Yantis; J Jonides
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1984-10       Impact factor: 3.332

View more
  6 in total

1.  Losing the trees for the forest in dynamic visual search.

Authors:  Nicole L Jardine; Cathleen M Moore
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2015-12-21       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  Search through complex motion displays does not break down under spatial memory load.

Authors:  Johan Hulleman; Christian N L Olivers
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2014-06

3.  Visual search guidance uses coarser template information than target-match decisions.

Authors:  Xinger Yu; Simran K Johal; Joy J Geng
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-04-26       Impact factor: 2.157

4.  Medium versus difficult visual search: How a quantitative change in the functional visual field leads to a qualitative difference in performance.

Authors:  Johan Hulleman; Kristofer Lund; Paul A Skarratt
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Motion disrupts dynamic visual search for an orientation change.

Authors:  Emily M Crowe; Christina J Howard; Iain D Gilchrist; Christopher Kent
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2021-06-26

6.  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
  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.