Literature DB >> 25938253

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

Hayward J Godwin1, Stephen C Walenchok2, Joseph W Houpt3, Michael C Hout4, Stephen D Goldinger2.   

Abstract

When engaged in a visual search for two targets, participants are slower and less accurate in their responses, relative to their performance when searching for singular targets. Previous work on this "dual-target cost" has primarily focused on the breakdown of attentional guidance when looking for two items. Here, we investigated how object identification processes are affected by dual-target search. Our goal was to chart the speed at which distractors could be rejected, to assess whether dual-target search impairs object identification. To do so, we examined the capacity coefficient, which measures the speed at which decisions can be made, and provides a baseline of parallel performance against which to compare. We found that participants could search at or above this baseline, suggesting that dual-target search does not impair object identification abilities. We also found substantial differences in performance when participants were asked to search for simple versus complex images. Somewhat paradoxically, participants were able to reject complex images more rapidly than simple images. We suggest that this reflects the greater number of features that can be used to identify complex images, a finding that has important consequences for understanding object identification in visual search more generally. (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25938253      PMCID: PMC4516661          DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000036

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


  35 in total

1.  Numerical distance effects in visual search.

Authors:  Wolf Schwarz; Anne-Kathrin Eiselt
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2012-08       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  Guided search: an alternative to the feature integration model for visual search.

Authors:  J M Wolfe; K R Cave; S L Franzel
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  1989-08       Impact factor: 3.332

3.  A strong test of the dual-mode hypothesis.

Authors:  Erin M Ingvalson; Michael J Wenger
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  2005-01

4.  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

5.  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

6.  Searching for two things at once: establishment of multiple attentional control settings on a trial-by-trial basis.

Authors:  Zachary J J Roper; Shaun P Vecera
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2012-12

7.  Search for two categories of target produces fewer fixations to target-color items.

Authors:  Tamaryn Menneer; Michael J Stroud; Kyle R Cave; Xingshan Li; Hayward J Godwin; Simon P Liversedge; Nick Donnelly
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Appl       Date:  2012-12

8.  Time course of target recognition in visual search.

Authors:  Andreas Kotowicz; Ueli Rutishauser; Christof Koch
Journal:  Front Hum Neurosci       Date:  2010-04-13       Impact factor: 3.169

9.  Where similarity beats redundancy: the importance of context, higher order similarity, and response assignment.

Authors:  Ami Eidels; James T Townsend; James R Pomerantz
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  Attentional control via parallel target-templates in dual-target search.

Authors:  Doug J K Barrett; Oliver Zobay
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-01-28       Impact factor: 3.240

View more
  5 in total

1.  Comparing visual search and eye movements in bilinguals and monolinguals.

Authors:  Ileana Ratiu; Michael C Hout; Stephen C Walenchok; Tamiko Azuma; Stephen D Goldinger
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2017-08       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  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

3.  Does Threat Have an Advantage After All? - Proposing a Novel Experimental Design to Investigate the Advantages of Threat-Relevant Cues in Visual Processing.

Authors:  Andras N Zsido; Arpad Csatho; Andras Matuz; Diana Stecina; Akos Arato; Orsolya Inhof; Gergely Darnai
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-09-27

4.  Eye movements reflect expertise development in hybrid search.

Authors:  Megan H Papesh; Michael C Hout; Juan D Guevara Pinto; Arryn Robbins; Alexis Lopez
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2021-02-15

5.  Examining the effects of passive and active strategies on behavior during hybrid visual memory search: evidence from eye tracking.

Authors:  Jessica Madrid; Michael C Hout
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2019-09-23
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.