Visual search in divided areas: Dividers initially interfere with and later facilitate visual search

A common search paradigm requires observers to search for a target among undivided spatial arrays of many items. Yet our visual environment is populated with items that are typically arranged within smaller (subdivided) spatial areas outlined by dividers (e.g., frames). It remains unclear how dividers impact visual search performance. In this study, we manipulated the presence and absence of frames and the number of frames subdividing search displays. Observers searched for a target O among Cs, a typically inefficient search task, and for a target C among Os, a typically efficient search. The results indicated that the presence of divider frames in a search display initially interferes with visual search tasks when targets are quickly detected (i.e., efficient search), leading to early interference; conversely, frames later facilitate visual search in tasks in which targets take longer to detect (i.e., inefficient search), leading to late facilitation. Such interference and facilitation appear only for conditions with a specific number of frames. Relative to previous studies of grouping (due to item proximity or similarity), these findings suggest that frame enclosures of multiple items may induce a grouping effect that influences search performance.

[1]  Francesco Maringelli Carlo Umilta,et al.  The Control of the Attentional Focus , 1998 .

[2]  R. Parasuraman,et al.  The scaling of spatial attention in visual search and its modification in healthy aging , 2004, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  A. Treisman,et al.  Search asymmetry: a diagnostic for preattentive processing of separable features. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[4]  N. Lavie,et al.  Attentional capture by entirely irrelevant distractors , 2008 .

[5]  M. Bravo,et al.  The role of attention in different visual-search tasks , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[6]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model , 1986, Perception & psychophysics.

[7]  H. Egeth,et al.  Searching for conjunctively defined targets. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  R Parasuraman,et al.  Scale of attentional focus in visual search , 1999, Perception & psychophysics.

[9]  R. Kimchi Primacy of wholistic processing and global/local paradigm: a critical review. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[10]  G W Humphreys,et al.  Grouping processes in visual search: effects with single- and combined-feature targets. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[11]  M. Castelhano,et al.  Scene context influences without scene gist: Eye movements guided by spatial associations in visual search , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[12]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[13]  Michelle R. Greene,et al.  Visual search in scenes involves selective and nonselective pathways , 2011, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[14]  R. Remington,et al.  Selectivity in distraction by irrelevant featural singletons: evidence for two forms of attentional capture. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  J. Duncan,et al.  Visual search and stimulus similarity. , 1989, Psychological review.

[16]  D. Navon Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[17]  U. Neisser VISUAL SEARCH. , 1964, Scientific American.

[18]  H. Pashler,et al.  Detecting conjunctions of color and form: Reassessing the serial search hypothesis , 1987, Perception & psychophysics.

[19]  Yaoda Xu,et al.  The impact of item clustering on visual search: It all depends on the nature of the visual search. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[20]  Nilli Lavie,et al.  Entirely irrelevant distractors can capture and captivate attention , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[21]  J. Henderson,et al.  Initial scene representations facilitate eye movement guidance in visual search. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[22]  A. Treisman Perceptual grouping and attention in visual search for features and for objects. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  Just Say No: How Are Visual Searches Terminated When There Is No Target Present? , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[24]  J. Wolfe,et al.  What Can 1 Million Trials Tell Us About Visual Search? , 1998 .

[25]  K. Cave,et al.  Grouping effects on spatial attention in visual search. , 1999, The Journal of general psychology.

[26]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Grouping processes in visual search: Effects with single- and combined-feature targets , 1989 .

[27]  Anne Treisman,et al.  Feature Analysis in Early Vision , 2012 .

[28]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Guided Search 2.0 A revised model of visual search , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[29]  Antonio Torralba,et al.  Contextual guidance of eye movements and attention in real-world scenes: the role of global features in object search. , 2006, Psychological review.

[30]  U. Castiello,et al.  Size of the attentional focus and efficiency of processing. , 1990, Acta psychologica.

[31]  Jukka Saarinen,et al.  Visual Search for Grouped versus Ungrouped Icons in a Computer Interface , 2000, Hum. Factors.

[32]  John M Henderson,et al.  The time course of initial scene processing for eye movement guidance in natural scene search. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[33]  A Treisman,et al.  Feature analysis in early vision: evidence from search asymmetries. , 1988, Psychological review.