Literature DB >> 25567088

The prevalence effect in lateral masking and its relevance for visual search.

B P Geelen1, A H Wertheim.   

Abstract

In stimulus displays with or without a single target amid 1,644 identical distractors, target prevalence was varied between 20, 50 and 80 %. Maximum gaze deviation was measured to determine the strength of lateral masking in these arrays. The results show that lateral masking was strongest in the 20 % prevalence condition, which differed significantly from both the 50 and 80 % prevalence conditions. No difference was observed between the latter two. This pattern of results corresponds to that found in the literature on the prevalence effect in visual search (stronger lateral masking corresponding to longer search times). The data add to similar findings reported earlier (Wertheim et al. in Exp Brain Res, 170:387-402, 2006), according to which the effects of many well-known factors in visual search correspond to those on lateral masking. These were the effects of set size, disjunctions versus conjunctions, display area, distractor density, the asymmetry effect (Q vs. O's) and viewing distance. The present data, taken together with those earlier findings, may lend credit to a causal hypothesis that lateral masking could be a more important mechanism in visual search than usually assumed.

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25567088     DOI: 10.1007/s00221-014-4187-3

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Exp Brain Res        ISSN: 0014-4819            Impact factor:   1.972


  13 in total

1.  Asymmetries in visual search: an introduction.

Authors:  J M Wolfe
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2001-04

2.  Focused attention reduces the effect of lateral interference in multi-element arrays.

Authors:  R H Van der Lubbe; P J Keuss
Journal:  Psychol Res       Date:  2001

3.  Crowding degrades saccadic search performance.

Authors:  Björn N S Vlaskamp; Ignace Th C Hooge
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2006-02       Impact factor: 1.886

4.  How important is lateral masking in visual search?

Authors:  A H Wertheim; I T C Hooge; K Krikke; A Johnson
Journal:  Exp Brain Res       Date:  2005-11-23       Impact factor: 1.972

5.  Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks.

Authors:  Jeremy M Wolfe; Todd S Horowitz; Michael J Van Wert; Naomi M Kenner; Skyler S Place; Nour Kibbi
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2007-11

6.  Visual conspicuity: a new simple standard, its reliability, validity and applicability.

Authors:  A H Wertheim
Journal:  Ergonomics       Date:  2010-03       Impact factor: 2.778

7.  Pixel independence: measuring spatial interactions on a CRT display.

Authors:  D G Pelli
Journal:  Spat Vis       Date:  1997

8.  Search asymmetry: a diagnostic for preattentive processing of separable features.

Authors:  A Treisman; J Souther
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  1985-09

9.  Foveal and parafoveal recognition of letters and words by dyslexics and by average readers.

Authors:  H Bouma; C P Legein
Journal:  Neuropsychologia       Date:  1977       Impact factor: 3.139

10.  Varying target prevalence reveals two dissociable decision criteria in visual search.

Authors:  Jeremy M Wolfe; Michael J Van Wert
Journal:  Curr Biol       Date:  2010-01-14       Impact factor: 10.834

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.