Serial Attention Mechanisms in Visual Search: A Direct Behavioral Demonstration

In visual search, inefficient performance of human observers is typically characterized by a steady increase in reaction time with the number of array elementsthe so-called set-size effect. In general, set-size effects are taken to indicate that processing of the array elements depends on limited-capacity resources, that is, it involves attention. Contrasting theories have been proposed to account for this attentional involvement, however. While some theories have attributed set-size effects to the intervention of serial attention mechanisms, others have explained set-size effects in terms of parallel, competitive architectures. Conclusive evidence in favor of one or the other notion is still lacking. Especially in view of the wide use of visual search paradigms to explore the functional neuroanatomy of attentional mechanisms in the primate brain, it becomes essential that the nature of the attentional involvement in these paradigms be clearly defined at the behavioral level. Here we report a series of experiments showing that highly inefficient search indeed recruits serial attention deployment to the individual array elements. In addition, we describe a number of behavioral signatures of serial attention in visual search that can be used in future investigations to attest a similar involvement of serial attention in other search paradigms. We claim that only after having recognized these signatures can one be confident that truly serial mechanisms are engaged in a given visual search task, thus making it amenable for exploring the functional neuro-anatomy underlying its performance.

[1]  A Treisman,et al.  Feature analysis in early vision: evidence from search asymmetries. , 1988, Psychological review.

[2]  Claus Bundesen,et al.  1. Formal models of visual attention: a tutorial review , 1996 .

[3]  C Bundesen,et al.  A computational theory of visual attention. , 1998, Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences.

[4]  Kimron Shapiro,et al.  Direct measurement of attentional dwell time in human vision , 1994, Nature.

[5]  S. Luck,et al.  The role of attention in feature detection and conjunction discrimination: an electrophysiological analysis. , 1995, The International journal of neuroscience.

[6]  H. J. Muller,et al.  SEarch via Recursive Rejection (SERR): A Connectionist Model of Visual Search , 1993, Cognitive Psychology.

[7]  Alan Cowey,et al.  Temporal aspects of visual search studied by transcranial magnetic stimulation , 1997, Neuropsychologia.

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

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

[10]  N. Shimizu [Neurology of eye movements]. , 2000, Rinsho shinkeigaku = Clinical neurology.

[11]  D. Meyer,et al.  Analyses of multinomial mixture distributions: new tests for stochastic models of cognition and action. , 1991, Psychological bulletin.

[12]  L. Chelazzi Serial attention mechanisms in visual search: A critical look at the evidence , 1999, Psychological research.

[13]  Nick Fogt,et al.  The Neurology of Eye Movements, 3rd ed. , 2000 .

[14]  J. Duncan,et al.  The Slow Time-Course of Visual Attention , 1996, Cognitive Psychology.

[15]  R. Ratcliff Group reaction time distributions and an analysis of distribution statistics. , 1979, Psychological bulletin.

[16]  G. Logan,et al.  Converging operations in the study of visual selective attention , 1996 .

[17]  James T. Townsend,et al.  The Stochastic Modeling of Elementary Psychological Processes , 1983 .

[18]  J. Townsend,et al.  Decomposing the reaction time distribution: Pure insertion and selective influence revisited☆ , 1980 .

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

[20]  J. Townsend,et al.  Search reaction time for single targets in multiletter stimuli with brief visual displays , 1973, Memory & cognition.

[21]  S. Luck,et al.  Neural sources of focused attention in visual search. , 2000, Cerebral cortex.

[22]  J T Townsend,et al.  Truth and consequences of ordinal differences in statistical distributions: toward a theory of hierarchical inference. , 1990, Psychological bulletin.

[23]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Conjunctive search for one and two identical targets. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[24]  Claus Bundesen,et al.  Visual Selective Attention: Outlines of a Choice Model, a Race Model and a Computational Theory , 1998 .

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

[26]  G. Orban,et al.  Attention Mechanisms in Visual SearchAn fMRI Study , 2000, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[27]  A. Villringer,et al.  Involvement of the human frontal eye field and multiple parietal areas in covert visual selection during conjunction search , 2000, The European journal of neuroscience.

[28]  M. Corbetta,et al.  Superior Parietal Cortex Activation During Spatial Attention Shifts and Visual Feature Conjunction , 1995, Science.

[29]  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.

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

[31]  Bernice W. Polemis Nonparametric Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences , 1959 .

[32]  W. Hockley Analysis of response time distributions in the study of cognitive processes. , 1984 .

[33]  C. Bundesen A theory of visual attention. , 1990, Psychological review.

[34]  R. Atkinson,et al.  Processing time as influenced by the number of elements in a visual display , 1969 .

[35]  Geoffrey F. Woodman,et al.  Electrophysiological measurement of rapid shifts of attention during visual search , 1999, Nature.

[36]  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.

[37]  K L Shapiro,et al.  Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: an attentional blink? . , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[39]  J R Harris,et al.  Serial-position curves for reaction time and accuracy in visual search: Tests of a model of overlapping processing , 1985, Perception & psychophysics.

[40]  J. Harbison,et al.  The Neurology of Eye Movements, 3rd ed , 2000 .

[41]  R. Ratcliff,et al.  Retrieval Processes in Recognition Memory , 1976 .