Literature DB >> 20601709

Learning in repeated visual search.

Michael C Hout1, Stephen D Goldinger.   

Abstract

Visual search (e.g., finding a specific object in an array of other objects) is performed most effectively when people are able to ignore distracting nontargets. In repeated search, however, incidental learning of object identities may facilitate performance. In three experiments, with over 1,100 participants, we examined the extent to which search could be facilitated by object memory and by memory for spatial layouts. Participants searched for new targets (real-world, nameable objects) embedded among repeated distractors. To make the task more challenging, some participants performed search for multiple targets, increasing demands on visual working memory (WM). Following search, memory for search distractors was assessed using a surprise two-alternative forced choice recognition memory test with semantically matched foils. Search performance was facilitated by distractor object learning and by spatial memory; it was most robust when object identity was consistently tied to spatial locations and weakest (or absent) when object identities were inconsistent across trials. Incidental memory for distractors was better among participants who searched under high WM load, relative to low WM load. These results were observed when visual search included exhaustive-search trials (Experiment 1) or when all trials were self-terminating (Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, stimulus exposure was equated across WM load groups by presenting objects in a single-object stream; recognition accuracy was similar to that in Experiments 1 and 2. Together, the results suggest that people incidentally generate memory for nontarget objects encountered during search and that such memory can facilitate search performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2010        PMID: 20601709      PMCID: PMC4241378          DOI: 10.3758/APP.72.5.1267

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys        ISSN: 1943-3921            Impact factor:   2.199


  28 in total

1.  Top-down suppression deficit underlies working memory impairment in normal aging.

Authors:  Adam Gazzaley; Jeffrey W Cooney; Jesse Rissman; Mark D'Esposito
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2005-09-11       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  Visual memory for objects in natural scenes: from fixations to object files.

Authors:  Benjamin W Tatler; Iain D Gilchrist; Michael F Land
Journal:  Q J Exp Psychol A       Date:  2005-07

3.  The relationship between online visual representation of a scene and long-term scene memory.

Authors:  Andrew Hollingworth
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 3.051

4.  Hyperspecificity in visual implicit learning: learning of spatial layout is contingent on item identity.

Authors:  Yuhong Jiang; Joo-Hyun Song
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  The role of working memory in attentional capture.

Authors:  Nilli Lavie; Jan De Fockert
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2005-08

6.  Distractor familiarity leads to more efficient visual search for complex stimuli.

Authors:  Ryan E B Mruczek; David L Sheinberg
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2005-08

7.  Accumulation and persistence of memory for natural scenes.

Authors:  David Melcher
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2006-01-12       Impact factor: 2.240

8.  Scene and position specificity in visual memory for objects.

Authors:  Andrew Hollingworth
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn       Date:  2006-01       Impact factor: 3.051

9.  Contextual cueing: implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention.

Authors:  M M Chun; Y Jiang
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 3.468

10.  Incidental visual memory for targets and distractors in visual search.

Authors:  Carrick C Williams; John M Henderson; Rose T Zacks
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2005-07
View more
  21 in total

1.  Faster than the speed of rejection: Object identification processes during visual search for multiple targets.

Authors:  Hayward J Godwin; Stephen C Walenchok; Joseph W Houpt; Michael C Hout; Stephen D Goldinger
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2015-05-04       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  Gist in time: Scene semantics and structure enhance recall of searched objects.

Authors:  Emilie L Josephs; Dejan Draschkow; Jeremy M Wolfe; Melissa L-H Võ
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  2016-06-03

3.  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

4.  The confirmation and prevalence biases in visual search reflect separate underlying processes.

Authors:  Stephen C Walenchok; Stephen D Goldinger; Michael C Hout
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2020-03       Impact factor: 3.332

5.  The interplay of episodic and semantic memory in guiding repeated search in scenes.

Authors:  Melissa L-H Võ; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2012-11-21

6.  Seek and you shall remember: scene semantics interact with visual search to build better memories.

Authors:  Dejan Draschkow; Jeremy M Wolfe; Melissa L H Võ
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-07-11       Impact factor: 2.240

Review 7.  The role of memory for visual search in scenes.

Authors:  Melissa Le-Hoa Võ; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Ann N Y Acad Sci       Date:  2015-02-12       Impact factor: 5.691

8.  Implicit object naming in visual search: Evidence from phonological competition.

Authors:  Stephen C Walenchok; Michael C Hout; Stephen D Goldinger
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 2.199

9.  Failures of perception in the low-prevalence effect: Evidence from active and passive visual search.

Authors:  Michael C Hout; Stephen C Walenchok; Stephen D Goldinger; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2015-04-27       Impact factor: 3.332

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.