Literature DB >> 24347113

Visual similarity is stronger than semantic similarity in guiding visual search for numbers.

Hayward J Godwin1, Michael C Hout, Tamaryn Menneer.   

Abstract

Using a visual search task, we explored how behavior is influenced by both visual and semantic information. We recorded participants' eye movements as they searched for a single target number in a search array of single-digit numbers (0-9). We examined the probability of fixating the various distractors as a function of two key dimensions: the visual similarity between the target and each distractor, and the semantic similarity (i.e., the numerical distance) between the target and each distractor. Visual similarity estimates were obtained using multidimensional scaling based on the independent observer similarity ratings. A linear mixed-effects model demonstrated that both visual and semantic similarity influenced the probability that distractors would be fixated. However, the visual similarity effect was substantially larger than the semantic similarity effect. We close by discussing the potential value of using this novel methodological approach and the implications for both simple and complex visual search displays.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24347113     DOI: 10.3758/s13423-013-0547-4

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


  15 in total

1.  Using the dual-target cost to explore the nature of search target representations.

Authors:  Michael J Stroud; Tamaryn Menneer; Kyle R Cave; Nick Donnelly
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2011-10-17       Impact factor: 3.332

Review 2.  The role of context in object recognition.

Authors:  Aude Oliva; Antonio Torralba
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2007-11-19       Impact factor: 20.229

3.  Just say no: how are visual searches terminated when there is no target present?

Authors:  M M Chun; J M Wolfe
Journal:  Cogn Psychol       Date:  1996-02       Impact factor: 3.468

4.  Visual similarity effects in categorical search.

Authors:  Robert G Alexander; Gregory J Zelinsky
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2011-07-14       Impact factor: 2.240

5.  The versatility of SpAM: a fast, efficient, spatial method of data collection for multidimensional scaling.

Authors:  Michael C Hout; Stephen D Goldinger; Ryan W Ferguson
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2012-07-02

Review 6.  Visual search in scenes involves selective and nonselective pathways.

Authors:  Jeremy M Wolfe; Melissa L-H Võ; Karla K Evans; Michelle R Greene
Journal:  Trends Cogn Sci       Date:  2011-01-10       Impact factor: 20.229

7.  The effects of target specification on objects fixated during visual search.

Authors:  L G Williams
Journal:  Acta Psychol (Amst)       Date:  1967

8.  Numerical bias in bounded and unbounded number line tasks.

Authors:  Dale J Cohen; Daryn Blanc-Goldhammer
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2011-04

Review 9.  Multidimensional scaling.

Authors:  Michael C Hout; Megan H Papesh; Stephen D Goldinger
Journal:  Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci       Date:  2012-10-08

10.  Determinants of dwell time in visual search: similarity or perceptual difficulty?

Authors:  Stefanie I Becker
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2011-03-08       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  11 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.  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

3.  Incidental memory following rapid object processing: The role of attention allocation strategies.

Authors:  Juan D Guevara Pinto; Megan H Papesh
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2019-06-20       Impact factor: 3.332

Review 4.  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

5.  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

6.  SpAM is convenient but also satisfying: Reply to Verheyen et al. (2016).

Authors:  Michael C Hout; Stephen D Goldinger
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2016-03

Review 7.  Avoiding potential pitfalls in visual search and eye-movement experiments: A tutorial review.

Authors:  Hayward J Godwin; Michael C Hout; Katrín J Alexdóttir; Stephen C Walenchok; Anthony S Barnhart
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2021-06-04       Impact factor: 2.199

8.  The applicability of eye-controlled highlighting to the field of visual searching.

Authors:  Qijun Wang; Mengdan Sun; Hongyan Liu; Yunxian Pan; Li Wang; Liezhong Ge
Journal:  Aust J Psychol       Date:  2018-02-26

9.  One visual search, many memory searches: An eye-tracking investigation of hybrid search.

Authors:  Trafton Drew; Sage E P Boettcher; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2017-09-01       Impact factor: 2.240

10.  Interaction between numbers and size during visual search.

Authors:  Florian Krause; Harold Bekkering; Jay Pratt; Oliver Lindemann
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2016-05-03
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.