Effort during visual search and counting: Insights from pupillometry

We investigated the processing effort during visual search and counting tasks using a pupil dilation measure. Search difficulty was manipulated by varying the number of distractors as well as the heterogeneity of the distractors. More difficult visual search resulted in more pupil dilation than did less difficult search. These results confirm a link between effort and increased pupil dilation. The pupil dilated more during the counting task than during target-absent search, even though the displays were identical, and the two tasks were matched for reaction time. The moment-to-moment dilation pattern during search suggests little effort in the early stages, but increasingly more effort towards response, whereas the counting task involved an increased initial effort, which was sustained throughout the trial. These patterns can be interpreted in terms of the differential memory load for item locations in each task. In an additional experiment, increasing the spatial memory requirements of the search evoked a corresponding increase in pupil dilation. These results support the view that search tasks involve some, but limited, memory for item locations, and the effort associated with this memory load increases during the trials. In contrast, counting involves a heavy locational memory component from the start.

[1]  S. Tipper,et al.  Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 1948, Nature.

[2]  G. A. Miller THE PSYCHOLOGICAL REVIEW THE MAGICAL NUMBER SEVEN, PLUS OR MINUS TWO: SOME LIMITS ON OUR CAPACITY FOR PROCESSING INFORMATION 1 , 1956 .

[3]  E. Hess,et al.  Pupil Size in Relation to Mental Activity during Simple Problem-Solving , 1964, Science.

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

[5]  D Kahneman,et al.  Perceptual Deficit during a Mental Task , 1967, Science.

[6]  Jum C. Nunnally,et al.  Pupillary response as a general measure of activation , 1967 .

[7]  R M Burde,et al.  THE PUPIL , 1967, International ophthalmology clinics.

[8]  W. S. Peavler,et al.  Effects of verbalization and incentive on the pupil response to mental activity. , 1968, Canadian journal of psychology.

[9]  J. Bradshaw Background light intensity and the pupillary response in a reaction time task , 1969 .

[10]  B. Goldwater Psychological significance of pupillary movements. , 1972, Psychological bulletin.

[11]  D. Kahneman,et al.  Attention and Effort , 1973 .

[12]  F. Campbell,et al.  The Dependence of the Visual Numerosity Limit on Orientation, Colour, and Grouping in the Stimulus , 1976, Perception.

[13]  E. Hess,et al.  Pupillometry: The Psychology of the Pupillary Response , 1978 .

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

[15]  D. van Norren,et al.  Visual acuity measured with pupil responses to checkerboard stimuli. , 1980, Investigative ophthalmology & visual science.

[16]  P. G. Vos,et al.  Configurational effects on the enumeration of dots: Counting by groups , 1982, Memory & cognition.

[17]  J. Beatty Task-evoked pupillary responses, processing load, and the structure of processing resources. , 1982, Psychological bulletin.

[18]  K. Ukai,et al.  Spatial pattern as a stimulus to the pupillary system. , 1985, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[19]  Robert H. Logie,et al.  Cognitive processes in counting. , 1987 .

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

[21]  Raymond Klein,et al.  Inhibitory tagging system facilitates visual search , 1988, Nature.

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

[23]  Jeremy M Wolfe,et al.  Modeling the role of parallel processing in visual search , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.

[24]  John Duncan,et al.  A neural basis for visual search in inferior temporal cortex , 1993, Nature.

[25]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Dissociable mechanisms of subitizing and counting: neuropsychological evidence from simultanagnosic patients. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  Z. Pylyshyn,et al.  Why are small and large numbers enumerated differently? A limited-capacity preattentive stage in vision. , 1994, Psychological review.

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

[28]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Visual marking : prioritising selection for new objects by top-down attentional inhibition , 1994 .

[29]  Stanislas Dehaene,et al.  Dissociable mechanisms of subitizing and counting: Neuropsychological evidence from simultanagnosic patients. , 1994 .

[30]  J Hyönä,et al.  Pupil Dilation as a Measure of Processing Load in Simultaneous Interpretation and Other Language Tasks , 1995, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[31]  C. J. Erkelens,et al.  Control of fixation duration in a simple search task , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

[32]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Visual marking: prioritizing selection for new objects by top-down attentional inhibition of old objects. , 1997, Psychological review.

[33]  J. Findlay Saccade Target Selection During Visual Search , 1997, Vision Research.

[34]  R. Desimone,et al.  Responses of Neurons in Inferior Temporal Cortex during Memory- Guided Visual Search , 1998 .

[35]  Todd S. Horowitz,et al.  Visual search has no memory , 1998, Nature.

[36]  J L Barbur,et al.  Visual processing levels revealed by response latencies to changes in different visual attributes , 1998, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[37]  M. Chun,et al.  Contextual Cueing: Implicit Learning and Memory of Visual Context Guides Spatial Attention , 1998, Cognitive Psychology.

[38]  Gregory G. Brown,et al.  Brain activation and pupil response during covert performance of the Stroop Color Word task , 1999, Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society.

[39]  Scott T. Grafton,et al.  Neural Evidence Linking Visual Object Enumeration and Attention , 1999, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[40]  R. Klein,et al.  Inhibition of Return is a Foraging Facilitator in Visual Search , 1999 .

[41]  L. Li,et al.  Searching for One Versus Two Identical Targets: When Visual Search Has a Memory , 2000, Psychological science.

[42]  R. Klein,et al.  On the manifestations of memory in visual search. , 2000, Spatial vision.

[43]  Iain D Gilchrist,et al.  Refixation frequency and memory mechanisms in visual search , 2000, Current Biology.

[44]  J. Wolfe Inattentional Amnesia , 2000 .

[45]  Á. Kristjánsson,et al.  In Search of Remembrance: Evidence for Memory in Visual Search , 2000, Psychological science.

[46]  J M Wolfe,et al.  Search for multiple targets: Remember the targets, forget the search , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[47]  David E. Irwin,et al.  Visual Search has Memory , 2001, Psychological science.

[48]  Karl J. Friston,et al.  Functional Anatomy of Visual Search: Regional Segregations within the Frontal Eye Fields and Effective Connectivity of the Superior Colliculus , 2002, NeuroImage.

[49]  S. Dehaene,et al.  Single-trial classification of parallel pre-attentive and serial attentive processes using functional magnetic resonance imaging , 2003, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences.

[50]  D. E. Irwin,et al.  How Much Memory Does Oculomotor Search Have? , 2003, Psychological science.