Literature DB >> 21574743

Incidental learning speeds visual search by lowering response thresholds, not by improving efficiency: evidence from eye movements.

Michael C Hout1, Stephen D Goldinger.   

Abstract

When observers search for a target object, they incidentally learn the identities and locations of "background" objects in the same display. This learning can facilitate search performance, eliciting faster reaction times for repeated displays. Despite these findings, visual search has been successfully modeled using architectures that maintain no history of attentional deployments; they are amnesic (e.g., Guided Search Theory). In the current study, we asked two questions: 1) under what conditions does such incidental learning occur? And 2) what does viewing behavior reveal about the efficiency of attentional deployments over time? In two experiments, we tracked eye movements during repeated visual search, and we tested incidental memory for repeated nontarget objects. Across conditions, the consistency of search sets and spatial layouts were manipulated to assess their respective contributions to learning. Using viewing behavior, we contrasted three potential accounts for faster searching with experience. The results indicate that learning does not result in faster object identification or greater search efficiency. Instead, familiar search arrays appear to allow faster resolution of search decisions, whether targets are present or absent.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21574743      PMCID: PMC3158272          DOI: 10.1037/a0023894

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


  61 in total

1.  The role of priming in conjunctive visual search.

Authors:  Arni Kristjánsson; DeLiang Wang; Ken Nakayama
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2002-08

2.  Panoramic search: the interaction of memory and vision in search through a familiar scene.

Authors:  Aude Oliva; Jeremy M Wolfe; Helga C Arsenio
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2004-12       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  Beyond the search surface: visual search and attentional engagement.

Authors:  J Duncan; G Humphreys
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1992-05       Impact factor: 3.332

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

Authors:  Christopher A Dickinson; Gregory J Zelinsky
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2005-12

5.  Visual search is guided by prospective and retrospective memory.

Authors:  Mathew S Peterson; Melissa R Beck; Miroslava Vomela
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2007-01

6.  Accumulation and persistence of memory for natural scenes.

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

7.  A new look at novelty effects: guiding search away from old distractors.

Authors:  Hyejin Yang; Xin Chen; Gregory J Zelinsky
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2009-04       Impact factor: 2.199

8.  The cost of search for multiple targets: effects of practice and target similarity.

Authors:  Tamaryn Menneer; Kyle R Cave; Nick Donnelly
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Appl       Date:  2009-06

9.  Perceiving real-world scenes.

Authors:  I Biederman
Journal:  Science       Date:  1972-07-07       Impact factor: 47.728

10.  The role of visual attention in saccadic eye movements.

Authors:  J E Hoffman; B Subramaniam
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1995-08
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.  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

4.  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

5.  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 6.  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

7.  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

8.  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 9.  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

10.  Target templates: the precision of mental representations affects attentional guidance and decision-making in visual search.

Authors:  Michael C Hout; Stephen D Goldinger
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 2.199

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.