Skip to content Skip to navigation
University of Warwick
  • Study
  • |
  • Research
  • |
  • Business
  • |
  • Alumni
  • |
  • News
  • |
  • About

University of Warwick
Publications service & WRAP

Highlight your research

  • WRAP
    • Home
    • Search WRAP
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse WRAP by Year
    • Browse WRAP by Subject
    • Browse WRAP by Department
    • Browse WRAP by Funder
    • Browse Theses by Department
  • Publications Service
    • Home
    • Search Publications Service
    • Browse by Warwick Author
    • Browse Publications service by Year
    • Browse Publications service by Subject
    • Browse Publications service by Department
    • Browse Publications service by Funder
  • Statistics
  • Help & Advice
University of Warwick

The Library

  • Login

Two (or three) is one too many : testing the flexibility of contextual cueing with multiple target locations

Tools
- Tools
+ Tools

Zellin, Martina, Conci, Markus, von Mühlenen, Adrian and Müller, Hermann J.. (2011) Two (or three) is one too many : testing the flexibility of contextual cueing with multiple target locations. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, Vol.73 (No.7). pp. 2065-2076. ISSN 1943-3921

[img]
Preview
Text
WRAP_Von_Muhlenen_1070268-lb-190911-zellin-pp-orig-11-017-revised.pdf - Accepted Version

Download (777Kb)
Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/s13414-011-0175-x

Abstract

Visual search for a target object is facilitated when the object is repeatedly presented within an invariant context of surrounding items ("contextual cueing"; Chun & Jiang, Cognitive Psychology, 36, 28-71, 1998). The present study investigated whether such invariant contexts can cue more than one target location. In a series of three experiments, we showed that contextual cueing is significantly reduced when invariant contexts are paired with two rather than one possible target location, whereas no contextual cueing occurs with three distinct target locations. Closer data inspection revealed that one "dominant" target always exhibited substantially more contextual cueing than did the other, "minor" target(s), which caused negative contextual-cueing effects. However, minor targets could benefit from the invariant context when they were spatially close to the dominant target. In sum, our experiments suggest that contextual cueing can guide visual attention to a spatially limited region of the display, only enhancing the detection of targets presented inside that region.

Item Type: Journal Article
Subjects: B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology
Divisions: Faculty of Science > Psychology
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH): Vision -- Psychological aspects, Context effects (Psychology)
Journal or Publication Title: Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
Publisher: Springer
ISSN: 1943-3921
Date: October 2011
Volume: Vol.73
Number: No.7
Page Range: pp. 2065-2076
Identification Number: 10.3758/s13414-011-0175-x
Status: Peer Reviewed
Publication Status: Published
Access rights to Published version: Restricted or Subscription Access
Funder: Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG), CoTeSys Excellence Cluster
Grant number: FOR 480 (DFG), 142 (CEC)
References: Bar, M. (2004). Visual objects in context. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 617–629. Biederman, I., Mezzanotte, R. J., & Rabinowitz, J. C. (1982). Scene perception: detecting and judging objects undergoing relational violations. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 143–177. Brady, T. F., & Chun, M. M. (2007). Spatial constraints on learning in visual search: modeling contextual cuing. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 33, 798–815. Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 433–436. Chua, K.-P., Chun, M.M. (2003). Implicit scene learning is viewpoint dependent. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 72-80. Chun, M. M. (2000). Contextual cueing of visual attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 170–178. Chun, M. M., & Jiang, Y. (1998). Contextual cueing: implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 28–71. Conci, M., & von Mühlenen, A. (2009). Region segmentation and contextual cuing in visual search. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 71, 1514–1524. Conci, M., Sun, L., & Müller, H. J. (2011). Contextual remapping in visual search after predictable target-location changes. Psychological Research (Manuscript in press). Endo, N., & Takeda, Y. (2005). Use of spatial context is restricted by relative position in implicit learning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 880–885. Fiske, S., & Sanocki, T. (2010). Memory and attentional guidance in contextual cueing. Journal of Vision, 10, 1302. Geyer, T., Shi, Z., & Müller, H. J. (2010). Contextual cueing in multi-conjunction visual search is dependent on color- and configuration-based intertrial contingencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 36, 515–532. Hollingworth, A. (2006). Scene and position specificity in visual memory for objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 32, 58–69. Jiang, Y., & Chun, M. M. (2001). Selective attention modulates implicit learning. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. A, Human Experimental Psychology, 54, 1105–1124. Jiang, Y., & Wagner, L. C. (2004). What is learned in spatial contextual cuing—configuration or individual locations? Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 454–463. Jiang, Y., Song, J.-H., & Rigas, A. (2005). High-capacity spatial contextual memory. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 524–529. Jungé, J. A., Scholl, B. J., & Chun, M. M. (2007). How is spatial context learning integrated over signal versus noise? A primacy effect in contextual cueing. Visual Cognition, 15, 1– 11. Kunar, M. A., Michod, K. O., & Wolfe, J. M. (2005). When we use the context in contextual cueing: Evidence from multiple target locations. Journal of Vision, 5, 412. Makovski, T., & Jiang, Y. V. (2010). Contextual cost: when a visual-search target is not where it should be. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 216–225. Manginelli, A. A., & Pollmann, S. (2009). Misleading contextual cues: how do they affect visual search? Psychological Research, 73, 212–221. Nabeta, T., Ono, F., & Kawahara, J.-I. (2003). Transfer of spatial context from visual to haptic search. Perception, 32, 1351–1358. Oliva, A., & Torralba, A. (2007). The role of context in object recognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 520–527. Olson, I. R., & Chun, M. M. (2002). Perceptual constraints on implicit learning of spatial context. Visual Cognition, 9, 273–302. Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437–442. Wolfe, J. M., Klempen, N., & Dahlen, K. (2000). Postattentive vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance, 26, 693–716. 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, 495–501.
URI: http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/37684

Data sourced from Thomson Reuters' Web of Knowledge

Request changes to a record

Actions (login required)

View Item View Item

Document Downloads

More statistics for this item...
twitter

Email us: publications@warwick.ac.uk
Contact Details
About Us