The Library

Visual search in a multi-element asynchronous dynamic (MAD) world

Tools

Kunar, Melina A. and Watson, Derrick G. . (2011) Visual search in a multi-element asynchronous dynamic (MAD) world. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, Vol.37 (No.4). pp. 1017-1031. ISSN 1939-1277

Preview

PDF
WRAP_Kunar_091111-kunarwatson_inpress.pdf - Accepted Version - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (435Kb)

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023093

Abstract

In visual search tasks participants search for a target among distractors in strictly controlled displays. We show that visual search principles observed in these tasks do not necessarily apply in more ecologically valid search conditions, using dynamic and complex displays. A multi-element asynchronous dynamic (MAD) visual search was developed in which the stimuli could either be moving, stationary, and/or changing in luminance. The set sizes were high and participants did not know the specific target template. Experiments 1 through 4 showed that, contrary to previous studies, search for moving items was less efficient than search for static items and targets were missed a high percentage of the time. However, error rates were reduced when participants knew the exact target template (Experiment 5) and the difference in search efficiency for moving and stationary targets disappeared when lower set sizes were used (Experiment 6). In all experiments there was no benefit to finding targets defined by a luminance change. The data show that visual search principles previously shown in the literature do not apply to these more complex and "realistically" driven displays.

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology
Divisions:	Faculty of Science > Psychology
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Visual perception, Motion perception (Vision), Attention -- Research, Distraction (Psychology)
Journal or Publication Title:	Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance
Publisher:	American Psychological Society
ISSN:	1939-1277
Date:	August 2011
Volume:	Vol.37
Number:	No.4
Page Range:	pp. 1017-1031
Identification Number:	10.1037/a0023093
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
Access rights to Published version:	Restricted or Subscription Access
Funder:	University of Warwick
References:	Abrams, R. A., & Christ, S. E. (2003). Motion onset captures attention. Psychological Science, 14, 427–432. Abrams, R. A., & Christ, S. E. (2005). The onset of receding motion captures attention: Comment on Franconeri & Simons (2003). Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 219–223. Brockmole, J. R., Castelhano, M. S., & Henderson, J. M. (2006). Contextual cueing in naturalistic scenes: Global and local contexts. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 699– 706. Christ, S. E., & Abrams, R. A. (2006). Abrupt onsets cannot be ignored. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 13, 875–880. Chun, M. M., & Jiang, Y. (1998). Contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 28–71. Chun, M. M., & Wolfe, J. M. (1996). Just say no: How are visual searches terminated when there is no target present? Cognitive Psychology, 30, 39–78. Danziger, S., Kingstone, A., & Snyder, J. J. (1998). Inhibition of return to successively stimulated locations in a sequential visual search paradigm. MAD SEARCH 13 Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24, 1467–1475. Duncan, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96, 433–458. Egeth, H. E., Virzi, R. A., & Garbart, H. (1984). Searching for conjunctively defined targets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 32–39. Fisk, A. D., & Rogers, W. A. (1991). Toward an understanding of agerelated memory and visual search effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 120, 131–149. Fleck, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2007). Rare targets are rarely missed in correctable search. Psychological Science, 18, 943–947. Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Wright, J. H. (1994). The structure of attentional control: Contingent attentional capture by apparent motion, abrupt onset, and color. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 317–329. Franconeri, S. L., & Simons, D. J. (2003). Moving and looming stimuli capture attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 65(7), 999–1010. Franconeri, S. L., & Simons, D. J. (2005). The dynamic events that capture visual attention: A reply to Abrams and Christ. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 962–966. Hillstrom, A. P., & Yantis, S. (1994). Visual motion and attentional capture. Perception & Psychophysics, 55, 399–411. Horowitz, T. S., & Rich, A. N. (2007). Efficient segregation of moving and stationary objects in visual search. Abstracts of the Psychonomic Society, 12, 12. Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (1998). Visual search has no memory. Nature, 357, 575–577. Hu¨bner, R., & Malinowski, P. (2001). How to produce an absent-advantage in visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 258–271. Hulleman, J. (2009). No need for inhibitory tagging of locations in visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 116–120. Jonides, J. (1981). Voluntary vs. automatic control over the mind’s eye’s movement. In J. B. Long & A. D. Baddeley (Eds.), Attention and performance IX. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Joseph, J. S., Chun, M. M., & Nakayama, K. (1997). Attentional requirements in a “preattentive” feature search task. Nature, 387, 805–807. Klein, R. M. (1988). Inhibitory tagging system facilitates visual search. Nature, 334, 430–431. Kramer, A., Schneider, W., Fisk, A., & Donchin, E. (1986). The effects of practice and task structure on components of the event-related brain potential. Psychophysiology, 23, 33–47. Kristjansson, A. (2000). In search of remembrance: Evidence for memory in visual search. Psychological Science, 11, 328–332. Kunar, M. A., Flusberg, S. J., & Wolfe, J. M. (2008). The role of memory and restricted context in repeated visual search. Perception and Psychophysics, 70, 314–328. Kunar, M. A., Humphreys, G. W., & Smith, K. J. (2003). Visual change with moving displays: More evidence for color feature map inhibition during preview search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 779–792. Kunar, M. A., Rich, A. N., & Wolfe, J. M. (2010). Spatial and temporal separation fails to counteract the effects of low prevalence in visual search. Visual Cognition, 18, 881–897. McLeod, P., Driver, J., & Crisp, J. (1988). Visual-search for a conjunction of movement and form is parallel. Nature, 332, 154–155. McLeod, P., Driver, J., Dienes, Z., & Crisp, J. (1991). Filtering by movement in visual-search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 55–64. Menneer, T., Cave, K. R., & Donnelly, N. (2009). The cost of search for multiple targets: Effects of practice and target similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 125–139. Menneer, T., Phillips, L., Donnelly, N., Barrett, D. J. K., & Cave, K. R. (2004). Search efficiency for multiple targets. Cognitive Technology, 9, 22–25. Nothdurft, H. C. (2000). Salience from feature contrast: Variations with texture density. Vision Research, 40, 3181–3200. Oliva, A., Wolfe, J. M., & Arsenio, H. C. (2004). Panoramic search: The interaction of memory and vision in search through a familiar scene. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 30, 1132–1146. O’Regan, J. K., Rensink, R. A., & Clark, J. J. (1999). Change-blindness as a result of “mudsplashes.” Nature, 398, 34–34. Pinto, Y., Olivers, C., & Theeuwes, J. (2006). When is search for a static target among dynamic distractors efficient? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32, 59–72. Pinto, Y., Olivers, C. N. L., & Theeuwes, J. (2008). Selecting from dynamic environments: Attention distinguishes between blinking and moving. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 166–178. Posner, M. I., & Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of visual orienting. In H. Bouma & D. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention & Performance X (pp. 531– 556). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pylyshyn, Z. (2001). Visual indexes, preconceptual objects, and situated vision, Cognition, 80, 127–158. Pylyshyn, Z. W., & Storm, R. W. (1988). Tracking multiple independent targets: Evidence for a parallel tracking mechanism. Spatial Vision, 3, 179–197. Rasche, C., & Gegenfurtner, K. R. (2010). Visual orienting in dynamic broadband (1/f) noise sequences. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 72, 100–113. Rauschenberger, R. (2003). When something old becomes something new: Spatiotemporal object continuity and attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 600–615. Rich, A. N., Kunar, M. A., Van Wert, M., Hidalgo-Sotelo, B., Horowitz, T., & Wolfe, J. M. (2008). Why do we miss rare targets? Exploring the boundaries of the low prevalence effect. Journal of Vision, 8(15), 1–17. Schneider, W., & Fisk, A. (1982). Concurrent automatic and controlled visual search: Can processing occur without resource cost? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 8, 261– 278. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84(1), 1–66. Schreij, D., Owens, C., & Theeuwes, J. (2008). Abrupt onsets capture attention independent of top-down control settings. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 208–218. Smilek, D., Enns, J. T., Eastwood, J. D., & Merikle, P. M. (2006). Relax! Cognitive style influences visual search. Visual Cognition, 14, 543–564. Snyder, J. J., & Kingstone, A. (2001). Multiple location inhibition of return: When you see it and when you don’t. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54A, 1221–1237. Swallow, K. M., & Jiang, Y. V. (2010). The attentional boost effect: Transient increases in attention to one task enhance performance in a second task. Cognition, 115, 118–132. Theeuwes, J. (1994). Stimulus-driven capture and attentional set: Selective search for color and visual abrupt onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 799–806. Tong, F., & Nakayama, K. (1999). Robust representations for faces: Evidence from visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 1016–1035. Torralba, A., Oliva, A., Catelhano, M., & Henderson, J. M. (2006). Contextual guidance of eye movements and attention in real-world scenes: The role of global features in object search. Psychological Review, 113, 766–786. Treisman, A. (1988). Features and objects: The fourteenth Bartlett memo- 14 KUNAR AND WATSON rial lecture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40A, 201– 237. Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). Feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136. Treisman, A., & Sato, S. (1990). Conjunction search revisited. Journal of Experimental Perception and Performance, 16, 459–478. Van Wert, M. J., Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2009). Even in correctable search, some types of rare targets are frequently missed. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 71, 541–553. Von Mu¨hlenen, A., Mu¨ller, D., & Mu¨ller, H. J. (2003). Sit-and-wait strategies in dynamic visual search. Psychological Science, 14, 309– 314. Von Mu¨hlenen, A., Rempel, M., & Enns, J. T. (2005). Unique temporal change is the key to attentional capture. Psychological Science, 16, 979–986. Watson, D. G., Braithwaite, J. J., & Humphreys, G. W. (2008). Resisting change: The influence of luminance changes on visual marking and the preview benefit. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 1526–1539. Watson, D. G., & Humphreys, G. W. (1999). Segmentation on the basis of linear and local rotational motion: Motion grouping in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 70–82. Watson, D. G., & Kunar, M. A. (2010). Visual marking and change blindness: Moving occluders and transient masks neutralize shape changes to ignored objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36, 1391–1405. Wolfe, J. M. (1998). What can 1 million trials tell us about visual search? Psychological Science, 9, 33–39. Wolfe, J. M., Cave, K. R., & Franzel, S. L. (1989). Guided search: An alternative to the feature integration model for visual-search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 419–433. Wolfe, J. M., & Friedman-Hill, S. R. (1992). On the role of symmetry in visual search. Psychological Science, 3, 194–198. Wolfe, J. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2004). What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 1–7. Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., & Kenner, N. M. (2005). Rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature, 435, 439–440. Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., Van Wert, M. J., Kenner, N. M., Place, S. S., & Kibbi, N. (2007). Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 623–638. Wolfe, J. M., Klempen, N., & Dahlen, K. (2000). Post-attentive vision. The Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 26, 693–716. Wolfe, J. M., & VanWert, M. J. (2010). Varying target prevalence reveals two, dissociable decision criteria in visual search. Current Biology, 20, 121–124. Yantis, S., & Egeth, H. (1999). On the distinction between visual salience and stimulus-driven attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 661–676. Yantis, S., & Gibson, B. (1994). Object continuity in apparent motion and attention. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 182–204. Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1984). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual-search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 601–621. Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1996). Attentional capture by abrupt visual onsets: New perceptual objects or visual masking? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 22, 1505– 1513.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/35729