A two-stage search of visual working memory: investigating speed in the change-detection paradigm

A popular procedure for investigating working memory processes has been the visual change-detection procedure. Models of performance based on that procedure, however, tend to be based on performance accuracy and treat working memory search as a one-step process, in which memory representations are compared to a test probe to determine if a match is present. To gain a clearer understanding of how search of these representations operate in the change-detection task, we examined reaction time in two experiments, with a single-item probe either located centrally or at the location of an array item. Contrary to current models of visual working memory capacity, our data point to a two-stage search process: a fast first step to check for the novelty of the probe and, in the absence of such novelty, a second, slower step to search exhaustively for a match between the test probe and a memory representation. In addition to these results, we found that participants tended not to use location information provided by the probe that theoretically could have abbreviated the search process. We suggest some basic revisions of current models of processing in this type of visual working memory task.     

Target location probability effects in visual search: an effect of sequential dependencies

Target location probability was manipulated in a visual search task. When the target was twice as likely to appear on 1 side of the display as the other, manual button-press response times were faster (Experiment 1A) and first saccades were more frequently directed (Experiment 1B) to the more probable locations. When the target appeared with equal probability at each location in this search task, performance benefited from repetition of target location in the preceding trials (Experiment 2). When the trial sequence was constrained so that target location did not repeat within a series of 4 trials, there was no longer an advantage for more probable locations (Experiment 3). The authors conclude that the search benefits for more probable locations resulted from short-term target location repetitions.     

Sources of individual differences in working memory: Contributions of strategy to capacity

Some research on attentional control in working memory has emphasized theoretical capacity differences. However, strategic behavior, which has been relatively unexplored, can also influence attentional control and its relationship to cognitive performance. In two experiments, we examined the relationship between attentional control (measured with operation span) and interference in a part-list cuing paradigm. Paradoxically, the results indicated that superior attentional control was related to increased interference. This relationship reflected the participants’ use of more complex encoding strategies, rather than superior interference control at retrieval, and was eliminated following brief encoding strategy training. The results suggest that complex span measures sometimes predict individual differences in task strategies related to interference control and that these strategies may be amenable to training. The implications for working memory research and the roles of strategies in basic memory and attention paradigms are briefly discussed.     

Hess and Pretori revisited: Resolution of some old contradictions

An early experiment by Hess and Pretori (1894) was replicated and modified in an attempt to determine why they failed to find the ratio principle later discovered by Wallach (1948). Separating the two surround-infield patterns by darkness made very little difference. However, allowing the observer to adjust the infield luminance (as in Wallach) rather than the surround luminance (as in Hess & Pretori) revealed some startling effects. At surround:infield luminance ratios greater than approximately 100∶1, there is no ratio effect; all infields appear equal and totally dark. Converging evidence is presented that Hess and Pretori’s data in this region actually represent surround-matching by the observers. Nor are ratio effects found with increments (infield brighter than surround). When free to match either infield luminances or ratios (by controlling infield luminance), observers match luminances. For decrements with ratios between 1∶1 and approximately 100∶1, lightness constancy and the ratio principle hold.     

An anchoring theory of lightness perception

A review of the field of lightness perception from Helmholtz to the present shows the most adequate theories of lightness perception to be the intrinsic image models. Nevertheless, these models fail on 2 important counts: They contain no anchoring rule, and they fail to account for the pattern of errors in surface lightness. Recent work on both the anchoring problem and the problem of errors has produced a new model of lightness perception, one that is qualitatively different from the intrinsic image models. The new model, which is based on a combination of local and global anchoring of lightness values, appears to provide an unprecedented account of a wide range of empirical results, both classical and recent, especially the pattern of errors. It provides a unified account of both illumination-dependent failures of constancy and background-dependent failures of constancy, resolving a number of long-standing puzzles.     

Relative area and relative luminance combine to anchor surface lightness values

The anchoring of lightness perception was tested in simple visual fields composed of only two regions by placing observers inside opaque acrylic hemispheres. Both side-by-side and center/surround configurations were tested. The results, which undermine Gilchrist and Bonato’s (1995) recent claim that surrounds tend to appear white, indicate that anchoring involves both relative luminance and relative area. As long as the area of the darker region is equal to or smaller than the area of the lighter region, relative area plays no role in anchoring. Only relative luminance controls anchoring: The lighter region appears white, and the darker region is perceived relative to that value. When the area of the darker region becomes greater than that of the lighter region, relative area begins to playa role. As the darker region becomes larger and relative area shifts from the lighter region to the darker region, the appearance of the darker region moves toward white and the appearance of lighter region moves toward luminosity. This hitherto unrecognized rule is consistent with almost all of the many previous reports of area effects in lightness and brightness. This in turn suggests that a wide range of earlier work on area effects in brightness induction, lightness contrast, lightness assimilation, and luminosity perception can be understood in terms of a few simple rules of anchoring.     

Memory processes in multiple-target visual search

Gibson, Li, Skow, Brown, and Cooke (Psychological Science, 11, 324-327, 2000) had participants carry out a search task in which they were required to detect the presence of one or two targets. In order to successfully perform such a multiple-target visual search task, participants had to remember the location of the first target while searching for the second target. In two experiments we investigated the cost of remembering this target location. In Experiment 1, we compared performance on the Gibson et al. task with performance on a more conventional present-absent search task. The comparison suggests a substantial performance cost as measured by reaction time, number of fixations and slope of the search functions. In Experiment 2, we looked in detail at refixations of distractors, which are a direct measure of attentional deployment. We demonstrated that the cost in this multiple-target visual search task was due to an increased number of refixations on previously visited distractors. Such refixations were present right from the start of the search. This change in search behaviour may be caused by the necessity of having to remember a target-allocating memory for the upcoming target may consume memory capacity that may otherwise be available for the tagging of distractors. These results support the notion of limited capacity memory processes in search.