New Evidence for Strategic Differences between Static and Dynamic Search Tasks: An Individual Observer Analysis of Eye Movements

Two experiments are reported that further explore the processes underlying dynamic search. In Experiment 1, observers’ oculomotor behavior was monitored while they searched for a randomly oriented T among oriented L distractors under static and dynamic viewing conditions. Despite similar search slopes, eye movements were less frequent and more spatially constrained under dynamic viewing relative to static, with misses also increasing more with target eccentricity in the dynamic condition. These patterns suggest that dynamic search involves a form of sit-and-wait strategy in which search is restricted to a small group of items surrounding fixation. To evaluate this interpretation, we developed a computational model of a sit-and-wait process hypothesized to underlie dynamic search. In Experiment 2 we tested this model by varying fixation position in the display and found that display positions optimized for a sit-and-wait strategy resulted in higher d′ values relative to a less optimal location. We conclude that different strategies, and therefore underlying processes, are used to search static and dynamic displays.

[1]  G. Zelinsky A theory of eye movements during target acquisition. , 2008, Psychological review.

[2]  Christopher A. Dickinson,et al.  Memory for the search path: Evidence for a high-capacity representation of search history , 2007, Vision Research.

[3]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  Memory for rejected distractors in visual search? , 2003 .

[4]  K. Rayner Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[5]  David L. Sheinberg,et al.  Why Some Search Tasks Take Longer Than Others: Using Eye Movements to Redefine Reaction Times , 1995 .

[6]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Eye movements in reading and information processing : , 2015 .

[7]  Todd S. Horowitz,et al.  Revisiting the variable memory model of visual search , 2006 .

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

[9]  Johan Hulleman,et al.  No need for inhibitory tagging of locations in visual search , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[10]  H. Müller,et al.  Probing distractor inhibition in visual search: inhibition of return. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  Deborah J. Aks,et al.  Memory Across Eye-Movements: 1/f Dynamic in Visual Search , 2010 .

[12]  J. Henderson,et al.  Does Oculomotor Inhibition of Return Influence Fixation Probability during Scene Search? This Strategy Would Require a Mechanism for Keeping Track of Visited Locations , 2022 .

[13]  J. Palmer Attention in Visual Search: Distinguishing Four Causes of a Set-Size Effect , 1995 .

[14]  G. Woodman,et al.  Visual Search Remains Efficient when Visual Working Memory is Full , 2001, Psychological science.

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

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

[17]  J. McCarley,et al.  Automatic and intentional memory processes in visual search , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[18]  M. Carrasco,et al.  The eccentricity effect: Target eccentricity affects performance on conjunction searches , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[20]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Why are there eccentricity effects in visual search? Visual and attentional hypotheses , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[21]  Gregory J. Zelinsky,et al.  Precuing target location in a variable set size "nonsearch" task: Dissociating search-based and interference-based explanations for set size effects. , 1999 .

[22]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  Just Say No: How Are Visual Searches Terminated When There Is No Target Present? , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[23]  C. Scialfa,et al.  Response times and eye movements in feature and conjunction search as a function of target eccentricity , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[24]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Attention is fast but volition is slow , 2000, Nature.

[25]  J. Townsend Serial and within-stage independent parallel model equivalence on the minimum completion time ☆ , 1976 .

[26]  A. Yagi,et al.  Inhibitory tagging in visual search can be found if search stimuli remain visible , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[28]  Cathy H. Y. Chiu,et al.  The effects of visual lobe training with easy and difficult targets on changes of visual lobe shape characteristics and visual search performance. , 2009 .

[29]  Arthur F Kramer,et al.  Training older adults to search more effectively: scanning strategy and visual search in dynamic displays. , 2008, Psychology and aging.

[30]  John M. Findlay,et al.  Visual Attention: The Active Vision Perspective , 2001 .

[31]  P. Subramanian Active Vision: The Psychology of Looking and Seeing , 2006 .

[32]  B. C. Motter,et al.  The roles of cortical image separation and size in active visual search performance. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[33]  Dagmar Müller,et al.  Sit-and-Wait Strategies in Dynamic Visual Search , 2003, Psychological science.

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

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

[36]  Thomas Geyer,et al.  What do eye movements reveal about the role of memory in visual search? , 2007, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

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

[38]  Michael A. Cohen,et al.  The speed of free will , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[39]  J. Wolfe,et al.  What Can 1 Million Trials Tell Us About Visual Search? , 1998 .

[40]  Min-Shik Kim,et al.  The role of spatial working memory in visual search efficiency , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[41]  David L. Sheinberg,et al.  Eye movements during parallel-serial visual search. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[43]  R. Klein,et al.  Inhibition of return in static but not necessarily in dynamic search , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[44]  A. Oliva,et al.  Searching in dynamic displays: effects of configural predictability and spatiotemporal continuity. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[45]  B. C. Motter,et al.  Saccades and covert shifts of attention during active visual search: Spatial distributions, memory, and items per fixation , 2007, Vision Research.

[46]  S Ullman,et al.  Shifts in selective visual attention: towards the underlying neural circuitry. , 1985, Human neurobiology.

[47]  Derrick G. Watson,et al.  Visual marking of moving objects: a role for top-down feature-based inhibition in selection. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

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

[50]  W. Boot,et al.  Age-related differences in visual search in dynamic displays. , 2007, Psychology and aging.

[51]  Rajesh P. N. Rao,et al.  PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE Research Article EYE MOVEMENTS REVEAL THE SPATIOTEMPORAL DYNAMICS OE VISUAL SEARCH , 2022 .

[52]  Melissa R. Beck,et al.  Explicit memory for rejected distractors during visual search , 2006 .

[53]  Gregory J Zelinsky,et al.  Marking rejected distractors: A gaze-contingent technique for measuring memory during search , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[55]  A. Treisman,et al.  Conjunction search revisited. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[56]  M. Posner,et al.  Components of visual orienting , 1984 .

[57]  A J Courtney,et al.  Visual lobe dimensions and search performance for targets on a competing homogeneous background , 1986, Perception & psychophysics.

[58]  Walter R. Boot,et al.  Detecting Transient Changes in Dynamic Displays: The More You Look, the Less You See , 2006, Hum. Factors.

[59]  Johan Hulleman,et al.  Inhibitory tagging in visual search: Only in difficult search are items tagged individually , 2010, Vision Research.