Literature DB >> 23398258

Perceptual load corresponds with factors known to influence visual search.

Zachary J J Roper1, Joshua D Cosman, Shaun P Vecera.   

Abstract

One account of the early versus late selection debate in attention proposes that perceptual load determines the locus of selection. Attention selects stimuli at a late processing level under low-load conditions but selects stimuli at an early level under high-load conditions. Despite the successes of perceptual load theory, a noncircular definition of perceptual load remains elusive. We investigated the factors that influence perceptual load by using manipulations that have been studied extensively in visual search, namely target-distractor similarity and distractor-distractor similarity. Consistent with previous work, search was most efficient when targets and distractors were dissimilar and the displays contained homogeneous distractors; search became less efficient when target-distractor similarity increased irrespective of display heterogeneity. Importantly, we used these same stimuli in a typical perceptual load task that measured attentional spillover to a task-irrelevant flanker. We found a strong correspondence between search efficiency and perceptual load; stimuli that generated efficient searches produced flanker interference effects, suggesting that such displays involved low perceptual load. Flanker interference effects were reduced in displays that produced less efficient searches. Furthermore, our results demonstrate that search difficulty, as measured by search intercept, has little bearing on perceptual load. We conclude that rather than be arbitrarily defined, perceptual load might be defined by well-characterized, continuous factors that influence visual search. PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2013 APA, all rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23398258      PMCID: PMC3928141          DOI: 10.1037/a0031616

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


  29 in total

1.  Perceptual load and visuocortical processing: event-related potentials reveal sensory-level selection.

Authors:  T C Handy; M Soltani; G R Mangun
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2001-05

2.  The capacity of visual short-term memory is set both by visual information load and by number of objects.

Authors:  G A Alvarez; P Cavanagh
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2004-02

3.  Neural fate of ignored stimuli: dissociable effects of perceptual and working memory load.

Authors:  Do-Joon Yi; Geoffrey F Woodman; David Widders; René Marois; Marvin M Chun
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2004-08-01       Impact factor: 24.884

4.  Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control.

Authors:  Nilli Lavie; Aleksandra Hirst; Jan W de Fockert; Essi Viding
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2004-09

5.  On the locus of visual selection: evidence from focused attention tasks.

Authors:  S Yantis; J C Johnston
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 3.332

6.  Visual search and stimulus similarity.

Authors:  J Duncan; G W Humphreys
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1989-07       Impact factor: 8.934

7.  Levels of selection and capacity limits.

Authors:  V J Dark; W A Johnston; M Myles-Worsley; M J Farah
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1985-12

Review 8.  Strategies and models of selective attention.

Authors:  A M Treisman
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1969-05       Impact factor: 8.934

9.  Tests of the automaticity of reading: dilution of Stroop effects by color-irrelevant stimuli.

Authors:  D Kahneman; D Chajczyk
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1983-08       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  The locus of interference in the perception of simultaneous stimuli.

Authors:  J Duncan
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  1980-05       Impact factor: 8.934

View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  Twenty years of load theory-Where are we now, and where should we go next?

Authors:  Gillian Murphy; John A Groeger; Ciara M Greene
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2016-10

2.  High perceptual load leads to both reduced gain and broader orientation tuning.

Authors:  Moritz Stolte; Bahador Bahrami; Nilli Lavie
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2014-03-07       Impact factor: 2.240

3.  Context-dependent control over attentional capture.

Authors:  Joshua D Cosman; Shaun P Vecera
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 3.332

4.  Is perceptual learning always better at task-relevant locations? It depends on the distractors.

Authors:  Ishan Singhal; Narayanan Srinivasan
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2022-02-25       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Is a new feature learned behind a newly efficient color-orientation conjunction search?

Authors:  Yulong Ding; Tingni Li; Zhe Qu
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2022-08-11

6.  Visual short-term memory load strengthens selective attention.

Authors:  Zachary J J Roper; Shaun P Vecera
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2014-04

7.  Response terminated displays unload selective attention.

Authors:  Zachary J J Roper; Shaun P Vecera
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-12-24

8.  Accurate expectancies diminish perceptual distraction during visual search.

Authors:  Jocelyn L Sy; Scott A Guerin; Anna Stegman; Barry Giesbrecht
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2014-05-27       Impact factor: 3.169

9.  Competition explains limited attention and perceptual resources: implications for perceptual load and dilution theories.

Authors:  Paige E Scalf; Ana Torralbo; Evelina Tapia; Diane M Beck
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2013-05-10

10.  Visual Task Demands and the Auditory Mismatch Negativity: An Empirical Study and a Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Stefan Wiens; Malina Szychowska; Mats E Nilsson
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-01-07       Impact factor: 3.240

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.