Literature DB >> 26191615

You look familiar, but I don't care: Lure rejection in hybrid visual and memory search is not based on familiarity.

Jeremy M Wolfe1, Sage E P Boettcher2, Emilie L Josephs2, Corbin A Cunningham2, Trafton Drew1.   

Abstract

In "hybrid" search tasks, observers hold multiple possible targets in memory while searching for those targets among distractor items in visual displays. Wolfe (2012) found that, if the target set is held constant over a block of trials, reaction times (RTs) in such tasks were a linear function of the number of items in the visual display and a linear function of the log of the number of items held in memory. However, in such tasks, the targets can become far more familiar than the distractors. Does this "familiarity"- operationalized here as the frequency and recency with which an item has appeared-influence performance in hybrid tasks In Experiment 1, we compared searches where distractors appeared with the same frequency as the targets to searches where all distractors were novel. Distractor familiarity did not have any reliable effect on search. In Experiment 2, most distractors were novel but some critical distractors were as common as the targets while others were 4× more common. Familiar distractors did not produce false alarm errors, though they did slightly increase RTs. In Experiment 3, observers successfully searched for the new, unfamiliar item among distractors that, in many cases, had been seen only once before. We conclude that when the memory set is held constant for many trials, item familiarity alone does not cause observers to mistakenly confuse target with distractors. (c) 2015 APA, all rights reserved).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26191615      PMCID: PMC4666773          DOI: 10.1037/xhp0000096

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


  33 in total

1.  Repetition priming in visual search: episodic retrieval, not feature priming.

Authors:  Liqiang Huang; Alex O Holcombe; Harold Pashler
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2004-01

2.  A continuous dual-process model of remember/know judgments.

Authors:  John T Wixted; Laura Mickes
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 8.934

Review 3.  The medial temporal lobe and recognition memory.

Authors:  H Eichenbaum; A P Yonelinas; C Ranganath
Journal:  Annu Rev Neurosci       Date:  2007       Impact factor: 12.449

Review 4.  Where perception meets memory: a review of repetition priming in visual search tasks.

Authors:  Arni Kristjánsson; Gianluca Campana
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2010-01       Impact factor: 2.199

5.  Short-term memory scanning viewed as exemplar-based categorization.

Authors:  Robert M Nosofsky; Daniel R Little; Christopher Donkin; Mario Fific
Journal:  Psychol Rev       Date:  2011-04       Impact factor: 8.934

6.  Central processing uncertainty as a determinant of choice reaction time.

Authors:  G E Briggs; A M Johnsen; D Shinar
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1974-05

Review 7.  Self-terminating versus exhaustive processes in rapid visual and memory search: an evaluative review.

Authors:  T Van Zandt; J T Townsend
Journal:  Percept Psychophys       Date:  1993-05

8.  Visual long-term memory has a massive storage capacity for object details.

Authors:  Timothy F Brady; Talia Konkle; George A Alvarez; Aude Oliva
Journal:  Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A       Date:  2008-09-11       Impact factor: 11.205

9.  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

10.  The role of object categories in hybrid visual and memory search.

Authors:  Corbin A Cunningham; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2014-03-24
View more
  9 in total

1.  Lost in the supermarket: Quantifying the cost of partitioning memory sets in hybrid search.

Authors:  Sage E P Boettcher; Trafton Drew; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-01

2.  Item frequency in probe-recognition memory search: Converging evidence for a role of item-response learning.

Authors:  Rui Cao; Richard M Shiffrin; Robert M Nosofsky
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  2018-04

3.  Hybrid foraging search in younger and older age.

Authors:  Iris Wiegand; Caroline Seidel; Jeremy Wolfe
Journal:  Psychol Aging       Date:  2019-08-15

4.  Age doesn't matter much: hybrid visual and memory search is preserved in older adults.

Authors:  Iris Wiegand; Jeremy M Wolfe
Journal:  Neuropsychol Dev Cogn B Aging Neuropsychol Cogn       Date:  2019-05-03

5.  Hybrid foraging search: Searching for multiple instances of multiple types of target.

Authors:  Jeremy M Wolfe; Avigael M Aizenman; Sage E P Boettcher; Matthew S Cain
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  2016-01-20       Impact factor: 1.886

6.  Simple eye-movement feedback during visual search is not helpful.

Authors:  Trafton Drew; Lauren H Williams
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2017-11-22

7.  How did I miss that? Developing mixed hybrid visual search as a 'model system' for incidental finding errors in radiology.

Authors:  Jeremy M Wolfe; Abla Alaoui Soce; Hayden M Schill
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2017-08-23

8.  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

9.  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
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.