Literature DB >> 35313163

Negative cues minimize visual search specificity effects.

Ashley M Phelps1, Robert G Alexander2, Joseph Schmidt3.   

Abstract

Prior target knowledge (i.e., positive cues) improves visual search performance. However, there is considerable debate about whether distractor knowledge (i.e., negative cues) can guide search. Some studies suggest the active suppression of negatively cued search items, while others suggest the initial capture of attention by negatively cued items. Prior work has used pictorial or specific text cues but has not explicitly compared them. We build on that work by comparing positive and negative cues presented pictorially and as categorical text labels using photorealistic objects and eye movement measures. Search displays contained a target (cued on positive trials), a lure from the target category (cued on negative trials), and four categorically-unrelated distractors. Search performance with positive cues resulted in stronger attentional guidance and faster object recognition for pictorial relative to categorical cues (i.e., a pictorial advantage, suggesting specific visual details afforded by pictorial cues improved search). However, in most search performance metrics, negative cues mitigate the pictorial advantage. Given that the negatively cued items captured attention, generated target guidance but mitigated the pictorial advantage, these results are partly consistent with both existing theories. Specific visual details provided in positive cues produce a large pictorial advantage in all measures, whereas specific visual details in negative cues only produce a small pictorial advantage for object recognition but not for attentional guidance. This asymmetry in the pictorial advantage suggests that the down-weighting of specific negatively cued visual features is less efficient than the up-weighting of specific positively cued visual features. Published by Elsevier Ltd.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Attentional Capture; Categorical Cues; Guidance; Negative Cues; Pictorial Cues; Target Templates; Visual Search

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35313163      PMCID: PMC9090971          DOI: 10.1016/j.visres.2022.108030

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Vision Res        ISSN: 0042-6989            Impact factor:   1.984


  49 in total

1.  Serial deployment of attention during visual search.

Authors:  Geoffrey F Woodman; Steven J Luck
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 3.332

2.  Conceptual distinctiveness supports detailed visual long-term memory for real-world objects.

Authors:  Talia Konkle; Timothy F Brady; George A Alvarez; Aude Oliva
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Gen       Date:  2010-08

Review 3.  A Review of Perceptual Expertise in Radiology-How it develops, How we can test it, and Why humans still matter in the era of Artificial Intelligence.

Authors:  Stephen Waite; Zerwa Farooq; Arkadij Grigorian; Christopher Sistrom; Srinivas Kolla; Anthony Mancuso; Susana Martinez-Conde; Robert G Alexander; Alan Kantor; Stephen L Macknik
Journal:  Acad Radiol       Date:  2020-01       Impact factor: 3.173

Review 4.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention.

Authors:  R Desimone; J Duncan
Journal:  Annu Rev Neurosci       Date:  1995       Impact factor: 12.449

5.  Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features.

Authors:  V Maljkovic; K Nakayama
Journal:  Mem Cognit       Date:  1994-11

6.  Involuntary top-down control by search-irrelevant features: Visual working memory biases attention in an object-based manner.

Authors:  Rebecca M Foerster; Werner X Schneider
Journal:  Cognition       Date:  2017-12-08

7.  Templates for rejection: configuring attention to ignore task-irrelevant features.

Authors:  Jason T Arita; Nancy B Carlisle; Geoffrey F Woodman
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2012-04-02       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  Evidence for negative feature guidance in visual search is explained by spatial recoding.

Authors:  Valerie M Beck; Andrew Hollingworth
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2015-07-20       Impact factor: 3.332

9.  Do the contents of visual working memory automatically influence attentional selection during visual search?

Authors:  Geoffrey F Woodman; Steven J Luck
Journal:  J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.