Guided search for triple conjunctions

A key tenet of feature integration theory and of related theories such as guided search (GS) is that the binding of basic features requires attention. This would seem to predict that conjunctions of features of objects that have not been attended should not influence search. However, Found (1998) reported that an irrelevant feature (size) improved the efficiency of search for a Color × Orientation conjunction if it was correlated with the other two features across the display, as compared to the case in which size was not correlated with color and orientation features. We examined this issue with somewhat different stimuli. We used triple conjunctions of color, orientation, and shape (e.g., search for a red, vertical, oval-shaped item). This allowed us to manipulate the number of features that each distractor shared with the target (sharing) and it allowed us to vary the total number of distractor types (and, thus, the number of groups of identical items: grouping). We found that these triple conjunction searches were generally very efficient—producing very shallow Reaction Time × Set Size slopes, consistent with strong guidance by basic features. Nevertheless, both of the variables, sharing and grouping, modulated performance. These influences were not predicted by previous accounts of GS; however, both can be accommodated in a GS framework. Alternatively, it is possible, though not necessary, to see these effects as evidence for “preattentive binding” of conjunctions.

[1]  Koen Lamberts,et al.  The time course of categorization. , 1998 .

[2]  Joseph Krummenacher,et al.  Inter-trial and redundant-signals effects in visual search and discrimination tasks: Separable pre-attentive and post-selective effects , 2010, Vision Research.

[3]  DeLiang Wang,et al.  The role of priming in conjunctive visual search , 2002, Cognition.

[4]  Marius Usher,et al.  Competitive guided search: meeting the challenge of benchmark RT distributions. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[5]  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.

[6]  H. Müller,et al.  Visual search for dimensionally redundant pop-out targets: Evidence for parallel-coactive processing of dimensions , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[7]  Hanna Benoni,et al.  Diluting the burden of load: Perceptual load effects are simply dilution effects , 2010 .

[8]  P. McLeod,et al.  Motion coherence and conjunction search: Implications for guided search theory , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[9]  J. T. Mordkoff,et al.  Feature integration without visual attention: Evidence from the correlated flankers task , 2008, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[10]  James T. Townsend,et al.  A note on the identifiability of parallel and serial processes , 1971 .

[11]  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.

[12]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  Guided Search 4.0: Current Progress With a Model of Visual Search , 2007, Integrated Models of Cognitive Systems.

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

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

[15]  Ken Nakayama,et al.  Serial and parallel processing of visual feature conjunctions , 1986, Nature.

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

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

[18]  M. Eckstein The Lower Visual Search Efficiency for Conjunctions Is Due to Noise and not Serial Attentional Processing , 1998 .

[19]  S. Yantis,et al.  Selective visual attention and perceptual coherence , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[20]  Alexander B. Bilsky,et al.  Parallel processing of park-whole information in visual search tasks , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[21]  F. edridge-green Tests for Colour-Blindness , 1895, Nature.

[22]  H. Egeth,et al.  Searching for conjunctively defined targets. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  S Ullman,et al.  Parallel and serial processes in motion detection. , 1987, Science.

[24]  S. Dehaene Discriminability and dimensionality effects invisual search for featural conjunctions: A functional pop-out , 1989, Perception & psychophysics.

[25]  Takatsune Kumada,et al.  A conjunctive feature similarity effect for visual search , 2007, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[26]  S. Yantis,et al.  Detecting conjunctions of color and form in parallel , 1990, Perception & psychophysics.

[27]  H. Nothdurft Saliency effects across dimensions in visual search , 1993, Vision Research.

[28]  J. Townsend,et al.  The serial-parallel dilemma: A case study in a linkage of theory and method , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[29]  Hermann J Müller,et al.  Dimensional weighting in cross-dimensional singleton conjunction search. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[30]  M. Carrasco,et al.  The temporal dynamics of visual search: evidence for parallel processing in feature and conjunction searches. , 1999, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  Denis Cousineau,et al.  Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson's method , 2005 .

[32]  F. W. Edridge-Green,et al.  Test for Colour Blindness , 1895 .

[33]  P. McLeod,et al.  Filtering by movement in visual search. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[34]  Alan Kingstone,et al.  Influence of inter-item symmetry in visual search. , 2004, Spatial vision.

[35]  Richard D. Morey,et al.  Confidence Intervals from Normalized Data: A correction to Cousineau (2005) , 2008 .

[36]  Yuanzhen Li,et al.  Measuring visual clutter. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[37]  Y. Tsal,et al.  Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[38]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Grouping processes in visual search: Effects with single- and combined-feature targets , 1989 .

[39]  Nilli Lavie,et al.  Dilution: atheoretical burden or just load? A reply to Tsal and Benoni (2010). , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[40]  Frank E. Ritter,et al.  The Rise of Cognitive Architectures , 2007, Integrated Models of Cognitive Systems.

[41]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task , 1974 .

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

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

[44]  Denis Cousineau,et al.  Error bars in within-subject designs: a comment on Baguley (2012) , 2014, Behavior research methods.

[45]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Limitations on the Parallel Guidance of Visual Search : Color x Color and Orientation x Orientation Conjuctions , 2004 .

[46]  V. Lollo The feature-binding problem is an ill-posed problem , 2012, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[47]  Susan L. Franzel,et al.  Guided search: an alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[48]  Søren Kyllingsbæk,et al.  Understanding the allocation of attention when faced with varying perceptual load in partial report: A computational approach , 2011, Neuropsychologia.

[49]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Stimulus discriminability in visual search , 1994, Vision Research.

[50]  Melina A. Kunar,et al.  Does contextual cuing guide the deployment of attention? , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[52]  Andreas Bartels,et al.  Coding and binding of color and form in visual cortex. , 2010, Cerebral cortex.

[53]  H. Pashler,et al.  Detecting conjunctions of color and form: Reassessing the serial search hypothesis , 1987, Perception & psychophysics.

[54]  Ralph Weidner,et al.  Dimensional weighting of primary and secondary target-defining dimensions in visual search for singleton conjunction targets , 2009, Psychological research.

[55]  J M Wolfe,et al.  Part—whole information is useful in visual search for size × size but not orientation × orientation conjunctions , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[56]  Melina A. Kunar,et al.  Time to guide: Evidence for delayed attentional guidance in contextual cueing , 2008, Visual cognition.

[57]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[58]  Joseph Krummenacher,et al.  Visual search for dimensionally redundant pop-out targets: parallel-coactive processing of dimensions is location specific. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[59]  M. Proulx Bottom-up guidance in visual search for conjunctions. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[60]  A Found,et al.  Parallel coding of conjunctions in visual search , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[61]  Vincent Di Lollo The feature-binding problem is an ill-posed problem. , 2012, Trends in cognitive sciences.

[62]  M. R. Houck,et al.  Conjunction of color and form without attention: evidence from an orientation-contingent color aftereffect. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[63]  Jeremy M. Wolfe,et al.  The binding problem lives on: comment on Di Lollo , 2012, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[64]  J. T. Mordkoff,et al.  Dividing attention between color and shape revisited: redundant targets coactivate only when parts of the same perceptual object , 2011, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[65]  G W Humphreys,et al.  Grouping processes in visual search: effects with single- and combined-feature targets. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[66]  Jeff Miller,et al.  Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[67]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Influence of scene-based properties on visual search. , 1990, Science.

[68]  C. McCollough Color Adaptation of Edge-Detectors in the Human Visual System , 1965, Science.

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

[70]  Behavior research methods, instruments, & computers articles in press , 1992 .

[71]  D E Williams,et al.  Preattentive guidance of eye movements during triple conjunction search tasks: The effects of feature discriminability and saccadic amplitude , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.