What is "marked" in visual marking? Evidence for effects of configuration in preview search

Visual search for a conjunction target is facilitated when distractor sets are segmented over time: the preview benefit Watson and Humphreys (1997) suggested that this benefit involved inhibition of old items (visual marking, VM). We investigated whether the preview benefit is sensitive to the configuration of the old distractors. Old distractors changed their location prior to the occurrence of the new items, while also either changing or maintaining their configuration. Configuration changes disrupted search. The results are consistent with object-based VM, which is sensitive to the configuration of old stimuli.     

What kind of memory supports visual marking?

In visual search tasks, if a set of items is presented for 1 s before another set of new items (containing the target) is added, search can be restricted to the new set. The process that eliminates old items from search is visual marking. This study investigates the kind of memory that distinguishes the old items from the new items during search. Using an accuracy paradigm in which perfect marking results in 100% accuracy and lack of marking results in near chance performance, the authors show that search can be restricted to new items not by visual short-term memory (VSTM) of old locations but by a limited capacity and slow-decaying VSTM of new locations and a high capacity and fast-decaying memory for asynchrony.     

What is learned about nontarget items in simple visual search?

Human sensitivity to correlational structure between nontargets and likelihood of target presence in a visual letter-search task were studied in two experiments. In each of these experiments, the performance of subjects for whom the nontarget information was altered in the final trial block was compared with the performance of subjects for whom the nontarget information did not change. When stimulus strings were presented individually on a computer screen and subjects were required to make a yes-no decision about target presence (Experiment 1), the change in nontarget structure resulted in increased reaction times for target-absent trials. When subjects searched simultaneously for three possible targets (Experiment 2), the change in nontarget structure produced increased error rates and increased reaction times for both target-absent and target-present trials. Correlations between the amount of predictive information in individual stimulus strings and reaction times also showed that both switching and nonswitching subjects were sensitive to the nontarget context. However, neither self-reports of strategy nor postexperiment choices between context-consistent and -inconsistent letter strings indicated any explicit knowledge of the predictive information in the nontarget stimuli. Subjects can thus acquire and benefit from, apparently without awareness, information about subtle correlational structure in nontarget elements in simple visual search.     

What are the shapes of response time distributions in visual search?

Many visual search experiments measure response time (RT) as their primary dependent variable. Analyses typically focus on mean (or median) RT. However, given enough data, the RT distribution can be a rich source of information. For this paper, we collected about 500 trials per cell per observer for both target-present and target-absent displays in each of three classic search tasks: feature search, with the target defined by color; conjunction search, with the target defined by both color and orientation; and spatial configuration search for a 2 among distractor 5s. This large data set allows us to characterize the RT distributions in detail. We present the raw RT distributions and fit several psychologically motivated functions (ex-Gaussian, ex-Wald, Gamma, and Weibull) to the data. We analyze and interpret parameter trends from these four functions within the context of theories of visual search.     

Why is visual search superior in autism spectrum disorder?

This study investigated the possibility that enhanced memory for rejected distractor locations underlies the superior visual search skills exhibited by individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). We compared the performance of 21 children with ASD and 21 age‐ and IQ‐matched typically developing (TD) children in a standard static search task and a dynamic search task, in which targets and distractors randomly changed locations every 500 ms, precluding the use of memory in search. Children with ASD exhibited overall faster reaction time (RT) relative to TD children, and showed no disruption in search efficiency in the dynamic condition, discounting the possibility that memory for rejected distractors augments their visual search abilities. Analyses of RT x set size functions showed no group differences in slopes but lower intercepts for the ASD group in both static and dynamic search, suggesting that the ASD advantage derived from non‐search processes, such as an enhanced ability to discriminate between targets and distractors at the locus of attention. Eye‐movement analyses revealed that the ASD and TD groups were similar in the number and spatial distribution of fixations across the search array, but that fixation duration was significantly shorter among children with ASD. Lower intercepts in static search were related to increased symptom severity in children with ASD. In summary, ASD search superiority did not derive from differences in the manner in which individuals with ASD deployed their attention while searching, but from anomalously enhanced perception of stimulus features, which was in turn positively associated with autism symptom severity.     

Inhibition of return in visual marking? The importance of the interstimulus interval and the type of search task

Four experiments are presented that examine the possibility that inhibition of return (IOR) may occur in visual marking. Previously, Watson and Humphreys (1997), using a cue duration of 750 ms and an interstimulus interval (ISI) of 250 ms, concluded that IOR was not present in visual marking. In the present study, the first experiment examined three ISIs (250 ms, 500 ms, and 750 ms) with a constant stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA, 1000 ms) in a typical cueing paradigm and failed to find IOR with the short ISI. Based on these findings, the second (feature search) and third (conjunction search) experiments tested for IOR by using a visual marking paradigm with a 500 ms ISI. Evidence for IOR was found in the feature search (preview condition similar to half-elements baseline condition) and not in the conjunction search (preview condition similar to the all-elements baseline). The typical preview effect was found in Experiment 4 with a cue duration 1000 ms and no ISI. Overall, these findings indicate that IOR may play a role in visual marking, but only with feature search tasks and long ISIs between displays.     

Amodal completion in visual search: preemption or context effects?

In a previous study, search for a notched-disk target abutting a square among complete-disk nontargets and squares was inefficient in 250-ms exposures, but relatively efficient in 100-ms exposures. This finding was interpreted as evidence that amodal completion proceeds through a mosaic and then a completion stage, with the latter preempting the former. We used the same target but changed its context: Nontargets were instead notched disks near squares. Task set was also different: Participants searched for a complete disk. Contrary to the prediction of the preemption model, search was efficient in the 100-ms condition and inefficient in the 250-ms condition. We propose that in both the present and the previous studies, the target was ambiguous, and task set and context affected how it was perceived. In both experiments, set effects were evident for 100-ms exposures; context effects were evident for 250-ms exposures.     

Precue effects in visual search: Data or resource limited?

Precuing an observer as to where a target is more likely to occur in a subsequent visual array can increase the detectability (d′) of a target at that location. This is often attributed to the observer’s increased allocation of some limited cognitive resource (“attention”) to the cued location. Two experiments are reported which are difficult to interpret in this way even though they involve similar cue effects. The first involves postcuing a location well after the array but before the observer responds, so that the cue can influence the response but not the observation. The second involves precuing, but with slow sequential presentation of array elements prior to the response, so the observer need not share any limited resource while processing each element in turn. Enhanced detectability similar to that produced with precues and simultaneous presentation of elements is shown to occur in each experiment. An alternative data-limited (rather than resource-limited) interpretation of these effects is provided by a mathematical model in which the observer integrates equally noisy or degraded internal representations of the array elements, but gives more weight to cued elements in selecting a response. Theoretical parameters of the model are shown to provide separate measures of both an observer’s overall sensitivity and precue effects in cost-benefit analyses of cuing data.     

What do eye movements reveal about the role of memory in visual search?

Horowitz and Wolfe (1998, 2003) have challenged the view that serial visual search involves memory processes that keep track of already inspected locations. The present study used a search paradigm similar to Horowitz and Wolfe's (1998), comparing a standard static search condition with a dynamic condition in which display elements changed locations randomly every 111 ms. In addition to measuring search reaction times, observers' eye movements were recorded. For target-present trials, the search rates were near-identical in the two search conditions, replicating Horowitz and Wolfe's findings. However, the number of fixations and saccade amplitude were larger in the static than in the dynamic condition, whereas fixation duration and the latency of the first saccade were longer in the dynamic condition. These results indicate that an active, memory-guided search strategy was adopted in the static condition, and a passive “sit-and-wait” strategy in the dynamic condition.     

What do eye movements reveal about the role of memory in visual search?

Horowitz and Wolfe (1998, 2003) have challenged the view that serial visual search involves memory processes that keep track of already inspected locations. The present study used a search paradigm similar to Horowitz and Wolfe's (1998), comparing a standard static search condition with a dynamic condition in which display elements changed locations randomly every 111 ms. In addition to measuring search reaction times, observers' eye movements were recorded. For target-present trials, the search rates were near-identical in the two search conditions, replicating Horowitz and Wolfe's findings. However, the number of fixations and saccade amplitude were larger in the static than in the dynamic condition, whereas fixation duration and the latency of the first saccade were longer in the dynamic condition. These results indicate that an active, memory-guided search strategy was adopted in the static condition, and a passive “sit-and-wait” strategy in the dynamic condition.     

Why is information displaced from visual working memory during visual search?

Research has shown that performing visual search while maintaining representations in visual working memory displaces up to one object's worth of information from memory. This memory displacement has previously been attributed to a nonspecific disruption of the memory representation by the mere presentation of the visual search array, and the goal of the present study was to determine whether it instead reflects the use of visual working memory in the actual search process. The first hypothesis tested was that working memory displacement occurs because observers preemptively discard about an object's worth of information from visual working memory in anticipation of performing visual search. Second, we tested the hypothesis that on target absent trials no information is displaced from visual working memory because no target is entered into memory when search is completed. Finally, we tested whether visual working memory displacement is due to the need to select a response to the search array. The findings rule out these alternative explanations. The present study supports the hypothesis that change-detection performance is impaired when a search array appears during the retention interval due to nonspecific disruption or masking.     

Why are there eccentricity effects in visual search? Visual and attentional hypotheses

In standard visual search experiments, observers search for a target item among distracting items. The locations of target items are generally random within the display and ignored as a factor in data analysis. Previous work has shown that targets presented near fixation are, in fact, found more efficiently than are targets presented at more peripheral locations. This paper proposes that the primary cause of this “eccentricity effect” (Carrasco, Evert, Chang, & Katz, 1995) is an attentional bias that allocates attention preferentially to central items. The first four experiments dealt with the possibility that visual, and not attentional, factors underlie the eccentricity effect. They showed that the eccentricity effect cannot be accounted for by the peripheral reduction in visual sensitivity, peripheral crowding, or cortical magnification. Experiment 5 tested the attention allocation model and also showed that RT X set size effects can be independent of eccentricity effects. Experiment 6 showed that the effective set size in a search task depends, in part, on the eccentricity of the target because observers search from fixation outward.     

Are summary statistics enough? Evidence for the importance of shape in guiding visual search

Peripheral vision outside the focus of attention may rely on summary statistics. We used a gaze-contingent paradigm to directly test this assumption by asking whether search performance differed between targets and statistically-matched visualizations of the same targets. Four-object search displays included one statistically-matched object that was replaced by an unaltered version of the object during the first eye movement. Targets were designated by previews, which were never altered. Two types of statistically-matched objects were tested: One that maintained global shape and one that did not. Differences in guidance were found between targets and statistically-matched objects when shape was not preserved, suggesting that they were not informationally equivalent. Responses were also slower after target fixation when shape was not preserved, suggesting an extrafoveal processing of the target that again used shape information. We conclude that summary statistics must include some global shape information to approximate the peripheral information used during search.     

What influences visual search efficiency? Disentangling contributions of preattentive and postattentive processes

The present experiments introduce a new search technique for disentangling contributions of preattentive guidance and postattentive template matching to search efficiency. Participants performed searches (for negative or positive faces in Experiment 1; pop-out search in Experiment 2; conjunction search in Experiment 3) under either standard viewing conditions or a new restricted viewing condition in which items were occluded by black placeholders and revealed only when a participant moved the mouse pointer over the black square. Under full viewing conditions, search performance can be aided by both preattentive and postattentive mechanisms, whereas the mouse-contingent search relies solely on postattentive template-matching processes. Results demonstrate the utility of this new methodology for distinguishing contributions of preattentive guidance and postattentive template-matching processes in ambiguous search situations. Furthermore, application of the new restricting viewing method to search for emotionally expressive faces suggested that emotional information is processed preattentively and influences the allocation of focal attention.     

Category effects in visual search: A failure to replicate the “oh-zero” phenomenon

In the experiment of Jonides and Gleitman (1972), subjects searched displays of digits or letters for single, specified digit or letter targets. The slope of the function relating reaction time to display size was positive (mean=25 msec/item) if target and nontargets belonged to the same alphanumeric category (within-category search), but zero if target and nontargets belonged to different categories (between-category search). This held even for the target O, whose categorical relationship to nontargets was determined entirely by the name it was given. In the present paper, two attempted replications are reported, one as close as practically possible. For the unambiguous targets A, Z, 2, and 4, slopes were greater in within-category search than in between-category search, but positive and very variable in both cases. For the ambiguous target O, slopes were identical in within-category and between-category search, and again positive. The results suggest that with single, specified targets, differences between within-category and between-category search may be due entirely to variation in the average physical resemblance between target and nontargets. In line with previous findings, they show that one cannot characterize within-category search as generally “serial” and between-category search as generally “parallel.”     

What is consciousness for?

The answer to the title question is, in a word, volition. Our hypothesis is that the ultimate adaptive function of consciousness is to make volitional movement possible. All conscious processes exist to subserve that ultimate function. Thus, we believe that all conscious organisms possess at least some volitional capability. Consciousness makes volitional attention possible; volitional attention, in turn, makes volitional movement possible. There is, as far as we know, no valid theoretical argument or convincing empirical evidence that consciousness itself has any direct causal efficacy other than volition. Consciousness, via volitional action, increases the likelihood that an organism will direct its attention, and ultimately its movements, to whatever is most important for its survival and reproduction.