Visual attention and stimulus identification.

Previous research has provided evidence for parallel stimulus processing in visual search tasks; however, it has frequently been noted that detecting prespecified targets might be accomplished without actually identifying targets and/or distractors. A novel task was employed to require exhaustive identification: Subjects named the highest digit in an array. Reaction times and display size effects in this task were strikingly similar to the conventional search tasks reported here. Manipulation of display size and visual quality was used to test predictions of serial versus parallel encoding models. Display size was additive with two different visual quality factors in the highest digit task, a finding that argues against serial execution of the corresponding stages. Interactions with decision-related factors suggest that visual quality may have affected the rate of character recognition, not just feature extraction. Thus, various aspects of the results seem to strengthen the case for parallel (though perhaps capacity-limited) identification of multiple familiar stimuli. In the General Discussion, it is pointed out that parallel identification need not entail late selection, and some alternative possibilities are suggested.

[1]  D. Broadbent.  Perception and communication , 1958 .

[2]  George Sperling,et al.  The information available in brief visual presentations. , 1960 .

[3]  W K Estes,et al.  A DETECTION METHOD AND PROBABILISTIC MODELS FOR ASSESSING INFORMATION PROCESSING FROM BRIEF VISUAL DISPLAYS , 1964 .

[4]  Joseph B. Sidowski,et al.  Behavior research methods and instrumentation , 1968 .

[5]  C W Eriksen,et al.  Visual perceptual rate under two conditions of search. , 1969, Journal of Experimental Psychology.

[6]  G. Sperling,et al.  Extremely Rapid Visual Search: The Maximum Rate of Scanning Letters for the Presence of a Numeral , 1971, Science.

[7]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  Visual processing capacity and attentional control. , 1972, Journal of experimental psychology.

[8]  C. R. Snyder.  Selection, inspection, and naming in visual search. , 1972, Journal of experimental psychology.

[9]  Howard E. Egeth,et al.  Parallel processing of multielement displays , 1972 .

[10]  G. T. Gardner.  Evidence for independent parallel channels in tachistoscopic perception , 1973 .

[11]  George E. Briggs,et al.  On the locus of display load effects in choice reactions , 1973 .

[12]  Charles Curtis Eriksen,et al.  The extent of processing of noise elements during selective encoding from visual displays , 1973 .

[13]  A. H. C. van der Heijden,et al.  Some evidence for a limited capacity parallel selfterminating process in simple visual search tasks , 1975 .

[14]  G Wolford,et al.  Perturbation model for letter identification. , 1975, Psychological review.

[15]  A H van der Heijden,et al.  Some evidence for a limited capacity parallel selfterminating process in simple visual search tasks. , 1975, Acta psychologica.

[16]  D A Taylor,et al.  Stage analysis of reaction time. , 1976, Psychological bulletin.

[17]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: I , 1977 .

[18]  R. A. Kinchla,et al.  The role of structural redundancy in the perception of visual targets , 1977 .

[19]  Thomas H. Killion,et al.  Interaction of visual and cognitive effects in word recognition. , 1977 .

[20]  M. P. Friedman,et al.  HANDBOOK OF PERCEPTION , 1977 .

[21]  Patrick Rabbitt,et al.  SORTING, CATEGORIZATION, AND VISUAL SEARCH , 1978 .

[22]  J E Hoffman,et al.  Search through a sequentially presented visual display , 1978, Perception & psychophysics.

[23]  W. K. Estes,et al.  PERCEPTUAL PROCESSING IN LETTER RECOGNITION AND READING , 1978 .

[24]  Gordon D. Logan,et al.  Attention in Character-Classification Tasks : Evidence for the Automaticity of Component Stages , 1978 .

[25]  J E Hoffman,et al.  A two-stage model of visual search , 1979, Perception & psychophysics.

[26]  J. Miller.  Cognitive influences on perceptual processing. , 1979, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  G R Simms,et al.  The whole is more than the sum of the parts. , 1979, Current surgery.

[28]  Marilyn L. Shaw,et al.  Visual search in multicharacter arrays with and without gaps , 1979 .

[29]  J. Duncan.  The locus of interference in the perception of simultaneous stimuli. , 1980, Psychological review.

[30]  C M Francolini,et al.  On the nonautomaticity of “automatic” activation: Evidence of selective seeing , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[32]  John Duncan,et al.  The demonstration of capacity limitation , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[33]  J. Duncan,et al.  Directing attention in the visual field , 1981, Perception & psychophysics.

[34]  M. Posner.  Cumulative Development of Attentional Theory. , 1982 .

[35]  D. Broadbent.  Task combination and selective intake of information. , 1982, Acta psychologica.

[36]  J. Miller.  Discrete versus continuous stage models of human information processing: in search of partial output. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[37]  John Bray,et al.  PET Flasher: A machine language subroutine for timing visual displays and response latencies , 1982 .

[38]  M. R. Houck,et al.  The role of attentional resources in automatic detection , 1983, Cognitive Psychology.

[39]  J. Miller.  Can response preparation begin before stimulus recognition finishes? , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[40]  James T. Townsend,et al.  The Stochastic Modeling of Elementary Psychological Processes , 1983 .

[41]  H Pashler,et al.  Evidence against late selection: stimulus quality effects in previewed displays. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[42]  Raja Parasuraman,et al.  Varieties of attention , 1984 .