Odd-men-out are poorly localized in brief exposures.

Signal detection theory (SDT) asserts that sensory analysis is limited only by noise, and not by the number of stimuli analysed. To test this claim, we measured the accuracy of visual search for a single tilted element (the target) among 7 horizontal elements (distractors) using several different exposure durations, each terminated by a random noise mask. In the uncued condition, each element was a potential target. In the cued condition only 2 were. SDT predicts that location errors should be evenly distributed among all distractors. For long exposures (eg, 5.0 seconds), this prediction was confirmed, and SDT could simultaneously fit uncued and cued accuracies. For short exposures (eg, 0.1 seconds), errors were concentrated among distractors adjacent to the target, and, unless modified to account for this, SDT underestimated the difference between uncued and cued accuracies. Therefore, when the time available for search is brief, odd-men-out (ie, featural discontinuities) can be seen, but their positions can be only roughly estimated.

[1]  David C Burr,et al.  Feature-based integration of orientation signals in visual search , 2000, Vision Research.

[2]  Franklin A. Graybill,et al.  Introduction to The theory , 1974 .

[3]  J. Wolfowitz,et al.  Introduction to the Theory of Statistics. , 1951 .

[4]  J. Palmer.  Set-size effects in visual search: The effect of attention is independent of the stimulus for simple tasks , 1994, Vision Research.

[5]  J. Lund,et al.  Compulsory averaging of crowded orientation signals in human vision , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[6]  J. Palmer,et al.  Measuring the effect of attention on simple visual search. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[7]  B. Julesz,et al.  Short-range limitation on detection of feature differences. , 1987, Spatial vision.

[8]  M. Morgan,et al.  Blindsight in normal subjects? , 1997, Nature.

[9]  M. J. Morgan,et al.  Positional acuity with chromatic stimuli , 1985, Vision Research.

[10]  M. Eckstein.  The Lower Visual Search Efficiency for Conjunctions Is Due to Noise and not Serial Attentional Processing , 1998 .

[11]  M. Morgan,et al.  Visual Search for a Tilted Target: Tests of Spatial Uncertainty Models , 1998, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[12]  Bart Farell,et al.  Vernier acuity: Effects of chromatic content, blur and contrast , 1991, Vision Research.

[13]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Stimulus discriminability in visual search , 1994, Vision Research.

[14]  R. Watt,et al.  The recognition and representation of edge blur: Evidence for spatial primitives in human vision , 1983, Vision Research.

[15]  Jochen Braun,et al.  Blindsight in normal observers , 1995, Nature.

[16]  Preeti Verghese,et al.  The psychophysics of visual search , 2000, Vision Research.

[17]  D. Sagi.  Detection of an orientation singularity in gabor textures: Effect of signal density and spatial-frequency , 1990, Vision Research.

[18]  S. McKee,et al.  Exposure duration affects the sensitivity of vernier acuity to target motion , 1983, Vision Research.

[19]  M. Carrasco,et al.  Spatial covert attention increases contrast sensitivity across the CSF: support for signal enhancement , 2000, Vision Research.