The Library

The role of memory and restricted context in repeated visual search

Tools

Kunar, Melina A., Flusberg, Stephen and Wolf, Jeremy M. . (2008) The role of memory and restricted context in repeated visual search. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, Vol.70 (No.2). pp. 314-328. ISSN 1943-3921

Preview

PDF
WRAP_Kunar_8573940-230209-Kunar_Role_of_Memory.pdf - Requires a PDF viewer such as GSview, Xpdf or Adobe Acrobat Reader
Download (332Kb)

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/PP.70.2.314

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that the efficiency of visual search does not improve when participants search through the same unchanging display for hundreds of trials (repeated search), even though the participants have a clear memory of the search display. In this article, we ask two important questions. First, why do participants not use memory to help search the repeated display? Second, can context be introduced so that participants are able to guide their attention to the relevant repeated items? Experiments 1–4 show that participants choose not to use a memory strategy because, under these conditions, repeated memory search is actually less efficient than repeated visual search, even though the latter task is in itself relatively inefficient. However, when the visual search task is given context, so that only a subset of the items are ever pertinent, participants can learn to restrict their attention to the relevant stimuli (Experiments 5 and 6).

Item Type:	Journal Article
Subjects:	B Philosophy. Psychology. Religion > BF Psychology
Divisions:	Faculty of Science > Psychology
Library of Congress Subject Headings (LCSH):	Visual perception, Memory
Journal or Publication Title:	Attention, Perception & Psychophysics
Publisher:	Psychonomic Society, Inc.
ISSN:	1943-3921
Date:	February 2008
Volume:	Vol.70
Number:	No.2
Page Range:	pp. 314-328
Identification Number:	10.3758/PP.70.2.314
Status:	Peer Reviewed
Publication Status:	Published
Access rights to Published version:	Open Access
Funder:	National Institute of Mental Health (U.S.) (NIMH)
References:	Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 443-446 Chun, M. M. (2000). Contextual cueing of visual attention. Trends in Cognitive Science, 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. Hick, W. E. (1952) On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 4, 11-26. Hillstrom, A. &. Logan, G.D. (1998). Decomposing Visual Search: Evidence of Multiple Item-Specific Skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1385-1398. Hyman, R. (1953) Stimulus information as a determinant of reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 45, 188-196. Kunar, M.A., Flusberg, S.J., & Wolfe, J.M. (2006). Contextual cueing by global features. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 1204 - 1216. Kunar, M.A., Flusberg, S.J., Horowitz, T.S., & Wolfe, J.M., (2007). Does contextual cueing guide the deployment of attention? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 33, 816-828. Kunar, M.A. & Humphreys, G.W. (2006). Object-based inhibitory priming in preview search: Evidence from the ‘top-up’ procedure. Memory & Cognition, 34, 459-474. Kunar, M.A., Michod, K.O., & Wolfe, J.M., (2005). When we use context in contextual cueing: Evidence from multiple target locations. Journal of Vision, 5, 412a. Logan, G. (1979). On the use of a concurrent memory load to measure attention and automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 5, 189-207. Logan, G. (1992). Attention and preattention in theories of automaticity. American Journal of Psychology, 105, 3127-339. Logan, G., Taylor, S., & Etherton, J. (1999). Attention and automaticity: Toward a theoretical integration. Psychological Research, 62(2-3), 165-181. Oliva, A., Wolfe, J. & Arsenio, H. (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. Pelli, D. G. (1997) The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies, Spatial Vision, 10, 437-442. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R.M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing. I. Detection, search and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1-66. Sternberg, S. (1975). Memory scanning: New findings and current controversies. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 27, 1-32. Theeuwes, J., Kramer, A.F., & Atchley, P. (1998). Visual marking of old objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 130-134. Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136. Treisman, A., & Sato, S. (1990). Conjunction search revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 459-478. Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 1(2), 202-238. Wolfe, J. M. (1998). What do 1,000,000 trials tell us about visual search? Psychological Science, 9(1), 33-39. Wolfe, J. M., Cave, K. R., & Franzel, S. L. (1989). Guided Search: An alternative to the Feature Integration model for visual search. J. Exp. Psychol. - Human Perception and Perf., 15, 419-433. Wolfe, J. M., Klempen, N., & Dahlen, K. (2000). Post-attentive vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology:Human Perception & Performance, 26(2), 693-716. Wolfe, J. M. (1998). What do 1,000,000 trials tell us about visual search? Psychological Science, 9(1), 33-39.
URI:	http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/id/eprint/453