The cost of search for multiple targets: effects of practice and target similarity.

With the use of X-ray images, performance in the simultaneous search for two target categories was compared with performance in two independent searches, one for each category. In all cases, displays contained one target at most. Dual-target search, for both categories simultaneously, produced a cost in accuracy, although the magnitude of this dual-target cost was affected by the nature of the targets. When target feature sets shared values, accuracy in dual-target search was equivalent to that in the less accurate of the two single-target searches. However, when targets comprised different feature sets, accuracy in dual-target search was lower than in either single-target search. These results held after practice. In conclusion, dual-target search performance depends on the target representations required for search. When combined representations contain conflicting values within the most informative feature dimensions, then there is a cost in performance. When target representations share features, the search can be guided by the common values so that resources are not wasted on irrelevant distractors. The implication is that security screener performance might be improved by specializing in searching for threat categories that share features. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).

[1]  N. Logothetis,et al.  View-dependent object recognition by monkeys , 1994, Current Biology.

[2]  G W Humphreys,et al.  Visual search for targets defined by combinations of color, shape, and size: An examination of the task constraints on feature and conjunction searches , 1987, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  Arthur F Kramer,et al.  Visual Skills in Airport-Security Screening , 2004, Psychological science.

[4]  R. Desimone,et al.  Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. , 1995, Annual review of neuroscience.

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

[6]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory. , 1977 .

[7]  S. Edelman,et al.  Orientation dependence in the recognition of familiar and novel views of three-dimensional objects , 1992, Vision Research.

[8]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Second-order parallel processing: visual search for the odd item in a subset. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  C. Nodine,et al.  Nature of expertise in searching mammograms for breast masses , 1996, Medical Imaging.

[10]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  26.5 brief comms NEW , 2005 .

[11]  Kyle R. Cave,et al.  The effect of practice on top-down guidance in visual search for two types of complex target: Evidence from eye-movements , 2010 .

[12]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Preattentive Object Files: Shapeless Bundles of Basic Features , 1997, Vision Research.

[13]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  An exact picture of your target guides visual search better than any other representation , 2010 .

[14]  Michael D'Zmura,et al.  Color in visual search , 1991, Vision Research.

[15]  H. J. Muller,et al.  Visual search for singleton feature targets across dimensions: Stimulus- and expectancy-driven effects in dimensional weighting. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  Kyle R. Cave,et al.  Don't distract the searcher: search performance for X-ray security screening images is reduced with the addition of a simple mental arithmetic task , 2010 .

[17]  Naomi M. Kenner,et al.  Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[18]  J. D. Smith,et al.  Specific-token effects in screening tasks: possible implications for aviation security. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

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

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

[21]  Hany Farid,et al.  Search for a Category Target in Clutter , 2004, Perception.

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

[23]  S. Mitroff,et al.  Rare Targets Are Rarely Missed in Correctable Search , 2007, Psychological science.

[24]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Controlled and Automatic Human Information Processing: 1. Detection, Search, and Attention. , 1977 .

[25]  A. Treisman Features and Objects: The Fourteenth Bartlett Memorial Lecture , 1988, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[26]  Effects of stimulus probability and visual similarity on stimulus encoding. , 1985, The American journal of psychology.

[27]  G Sperling,et al.  The attention operating characteristic: examples from visual search. , 1978, Science.

[28]  Kyle R. Cave,et al.  Costs in Searching for Two Targets: Dividing Search Across Target Types Could Improve Airport Security Screening , 2007 .

[29]  Kyle R. Cave,et al.  The breakdown of color selectivity in multitarget search: Evidence from Eye Movements , 2010 .

[30]  E. Viding,et al.  Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[31]  Kyle R. Cave,et al.  Search efficiency for multiple targets , 2004 .

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