Visual search asymmetry: The influence of stimulus familiarity and low-level features

Wang, Cavanagh, and Green (1994) demonstrated a pop-out effect in searching for an unfamiliar target among familiar distractors (U—F search) and argued for the importance of a familiarity difference between the target and the distractors in determining search efficiency. In four experiments, we explored the generality of that finding. Experiment 1 compared search efficiency across a variety of target-distractor pairs. In Experiments 2, 3, and 4, we used Chinese characters and their transforms as targets and distractors and compared search performance between Chinese and non-Chinese participants. We demonstrated that search asymmetry and search efficiency in the U—F condition are influenced by the presence of low-level feature differences between the familiar and the unfamiliar stimuli. Our findings suggest that the familiarity of the distractors, rather than the familiarity difference between the target and the distractors, determines search efficiency. We also documented a counterintuitive familiarity-inferiority effect, suggesting that knowledge of search stimuli may, sometimes, be detrimental to search performance.

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

[2]  J Brand,et al.  Classification without Identification in Visual Search , 1971, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[3]  J. Jonides,et al.  A conceptual category effect in visual search: O as letter or as digit , 1972 .

[4]  J. Beck,et al.  Discriminability of differences in line slope and in line arrangement as a function of mask delay , 1972 .

[5]  N. W. Ingling.  Categorization: A mechanism for rapid information processing. , 1972 .

[6]  R. Lajoy,et al.  Effects of Familiarity, Verbal Response, and Practice on a Visual Search Task , 1974, Perceptual and motor skills.

[7]  U. Frith.  Acurious effect with reversed letters explained by a theory of schema , 1974 .

[8]  L. E. Krueger.  Familiarity effects in visual information processing. , 1975, Psychological bulletin.

[9]  J. Lappin,et al.  Similarity: Its definition and effect on the visual analysis of complex displays , 1976 .

[10]  G. M. Reicher,et al.  Familiarity of background characters in visual scanning. , 1976, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  Controlled and automatic human information processing: I , 1977 .

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

[13]  John T. Richards,et al.  The effect of background familiarity in visual search: An analysis of underlying factors , 1978 .

[14]  Effect of familiarity of Multielement matching. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[15]  A. Treisman.  Perceptual grouping and attention in visual search for features and for objects. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  L. E. Krueger,et al.  Effect of letter orientation and sequential redundancy on the speed of letter search , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[17]  R. Engle,et al.  Voice change in the stimulus suffix effect: Are the effects structural or strategic? , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[18]  L. E. Krueger.  The category effect in visual search depends on physical rather than conceptual differences , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

[19]  A. Treisman,et al.  Search asymmetry: a diagnostic for preattentive processing of separable features. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[20]  K. Cardosi,et al.  Some determining factors of the alphanumeric category effect , 1986, Perception & psychophysics.

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

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

[23]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Preattentive recovery of three-dimensional orientation from line drawings. , 1991, Psychological review.

[24]  M. Cheal,et al.  Does Attention Have Different Effects on Line Orientation and Line Arrangement Discrimination? , 1991, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[25]  D Sagi,et al.  Where practice makes perfect in texture discrimination: evidence for primary visual cortex plasticity. , 1991, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[26]  E. Reingold,et al.  Perceptual versus postperceptual mediation of visual context effects: Evidence from the letter-superiority effect , 1993, Perception & psychophysics.

[27]  P Cavanagh,et al.  Familiarity and pop-out in visual search , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[28]  Michael Grünau,et al.  Visual search asymmetry for viewing direction , 1994, Perception & psychophysics.

[29]  P Jolicoeur,et al.  Impact of Quality of the Image, Orientation, and Similarity of the Stimuli on Visual Search for Faces , 1994, Perception.

[30]  M. J. Farah,et al.  Late experience alters vision , 1995, Nature.

[31]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  FACIAL ORGANIZATION BLOCKS ACCESS TO LOW-LEVEL FEATURES: AN OBJECT INFERIORITY EFFECT , 1995 .

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

[33]  P. Perona,et al.  Preattentive Perception of Elementary Three-dimensional Shapes , 1996, Vision Research.

[34]  R. Klein,et al.  Assessing the evidence for novel popout. , 1996 .

[35]  William A. Johnston,et al.  Reassessing the evidence for novel popout. , 1996 .

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

[37]  Amanda Ellison,et al.  Perceptual learning in visual search: Some evidence of specificities , 1998, Vision Research.

[38]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Definition , 1960, A Philosopher Looks at Sport.

[39]  P. Malinowski,et al.  The effect of familiarity on visual-search performance: Evidence for learned basic features , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.