Improvement, Learning and Retention of Skill at Visual Search

Three experiments examined factors responsible for improvement in visual search. In Experiment I three groups of subjects were each trained for 3000 trials to search for a particular set of target letters among a particular set of background letters. After intervals of 2, 4, or 6 weeks without further practice they were re-tested, either with the same displays or on new displays which they searched for the same target items among new background items. Negative transfer suggested that memory for specific cue-systems distinguishing target from background letters is retained for as long as 4 weeks. Experiment II examined performance of three very highly practised subjects. After 25 days practice, variations in the size of the target set no longer affected search time. This could not be explained by learning of specific cue systems, since after this amount of practice subjects showed perfect transfer to displays which they searched for the same target items among new background items. Experiment III suggested that practised subjects achieve this high level of competence by learning to make two independent successive decisions, first to locate any member of the target set on the display and next to identify which particular member of the target set has been located.

[1]  M. W. Kristofferson,et al.  The effects of practice with one positive set in a memory scanning task can be completely transferred to a different positive set , 1977, Memory & cognition.

[2]  M. V. Rhoades,et al.  On the Reduction of Choice Reaction Times with Practice , 1959 .

[3]  U. Neisser.  Decision-time without reaction-time: Experiments in visual scanning. , 1963 .

[4]  Irwin Pollack,et al.  Speed of classification of words into superordinate categories , 1963 .

[5]  S. Sternberg.  Memory Scanning: New Findings and Current Controversies , 1975 .

[6]  J. Jonides,et al.  A conceptual category effect in visual search: O as letter or as digit , 1972 .

[7]  T Carvellas,et al.  Visual search and immediate memory. , 1966, Journal of experimental psychology.

[8]  U NEISSER,et al.  Searching for Ten Targets Simultaneously , 1963, Perceptual and motor skills.

[9]  P. Rabbitt.  Learning to ignore irrelevant information. , 1967, The American journal of psychology.

[10]  P. Rabbitt.  Effects of Independent Variations in Stimulus and Response Probability , 1959, Nature.

[11]  J. Jonides,et al.  The cost of categorization in visual search: Incomplete processing of targets and field items , 1976 .

[12]  J Brand,et al.  Classification without Identification in Visual Search , 1971, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[13]  I T Kaplan,et al.  Scanning for Multiple Targets , 1965, Perceptual and motor skills.

[14]  E. R. Crossman.  A THEORY OF THE ACQUISITION OF SPEED-SKILL∗ , 1959 .

[15]  R. Nickerson,et al.  Stimulus Categorization and Response Time , 1964, Perceptual and motor skills.

[16]  Patrick Rabbitt,et al.  An elementary preliminary taxonomy for some errors in laboratory choice RT tasks , 1970 .

[17]  John Jonides,et al.  The benefit of categorization in visual search: Target location without identification , 1976 .

[18]  Albert Yonas,et al.  Visual and acoustic confusability a visual search task , 1966 .

[19]  P. Rabbitt.  IGNORING IRRELEVANT INFORMATION. , 1964, British journal of psychology.

[20]  N. W. Ingling.  Categorization: A mechanism for rapid information processing. , 1972 .

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