Literature DB >> 27919677

An individual differences approach to multiple-target visual search errors: How search errors relate to different characteristics of attention.

Stephen H Adamo1, Matthew S Cain2, Stephen R Mitroff3.   

Abstract

A persistent problem in visual search is that searchers are more likely to miss a target if they have already found another in the same display. This phenomenon, the Subsequent Search Miss (SSM) effect, has remained despite being a known issue for decades. Increasingly, evidence supports a resource depletion account of SSM errors-a previously detected target consumes attentional resources leaving fewer resources available for the processing of a second target. However, "attention" is broadly defined and is composed of many different characteristics, leaving considerable uncertainty about how attention affects second-target detection. The goal of the current study was to identify which attentional characteristics (i.e., selection, limited capacity, modulation, and vigilance) related to second-target misses. The current study compared second-target misses to an attentional blink task and a vigilance task, which both have established measures that were used to operationally define each of four attentional characteristics. Second-target misses in the multiple-target search were correlated with (1) a measure of the time it took for the second target to recovery from the blink in the attentional blink task (i.e., modulation), and (2) target sensitivity (d') in the vigilance task (i.e., vigilance). Participants with longer recovery and poorer vigilance had more second-target misses in the multiple-target visual search task. The results add further support to a resource depletion account of SSM errors and highlight that worse modulation and poor vigilance reflect a deficit in attentional resources that can account for SSM errors.
Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Attentional blink; Satisfaction of search; Subsequent search misses; Vigilance; Visual search

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27919677     DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2016.10.010

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.886


  5 in total

1.  Spotting rare items makes the brain "blink" harder: Evidence from pupillometry.

Authors:  Megan H Papesh; Juan D Guevara Pinto
Journal:  Atten Percept Psychophys       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 2.199

2.  Satisfaction in motion: Subsequent search misses are more likely in moving search displays.

Authors:  Cary Stothart; Andrew Clement; James R Brockmole
Journal:  Psychon Bull Rev       Date:  2018-02

3.  The Role of Working Memory in Dual-Target Visual Search.

Authors:  Elena S Gorbunova; Kirill S Kozlov; Sofia Tkhan Tin Le; Ivan M Makarov
Journal:  Front Psychol       Date:  2019-07-31

Review 4.  Using Eye Movements to Understand how Security Screeners Search for Threats in X-Ray Baggage.

Authors:  Nick Donnelly; Alex Muhl-Richardson; Hayward J Godwin; Kyle R Cave
Journal:  Vision (Basel)       Date:  2019-06-04

5.  Mammography to tomosynthesis: examining the differences between two-dimensional and segmented-three-dimensional visual search.

Authors:  Stephen H Adamo; Justin M Ericson; Joseph C Nah; Rachel Brem; Stephen R Mitroff
Journal:  Cogn Res Princ Implic       Date:  2018-06-14
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.