Prioritization in visual search: Visual marking is not dependent on a mnemonic search

Visual marking (VM) refers to our ability to completely exclude old items from search when new stimuli are presented in our visual field. We examined whether this ability reflects an attentional scan of the old items, possibly allowing observers to apply inhibition of return or maintain a memory representation of already seen locations. In four experiments, we compared performance in two search conditions. In the double-search (DS) condition, we required participants to pay attention to a first set of items by having them search for a target within the set. Subsequently, they had to search a second set while the old items remained in the field. In the VM condition, the participants expected the target only to be in the second (new) set. Selection of new items in the DS condition was relatively poor and was always worse than would be expected if only the new stimuli had been searched. In contrast, selection of the new items in the VM condition was good and was equal to what would be expected if there had been an exclusive search of the new stimuli. These results were not altered when differences in Set 1 difficulty, task switching, and response generation were controlled for. We conclude that the mechanism of VM is distinct from mnemonic and/or serial inhibition-of-return processes as involved in search, although we also discuss possible links to more global and flexible inhibition-of-return processes not necessarily related to search.

[1]  J. C. Johnston,et al.  Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

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

[4]  D. Kahneman,et al.  The cost of visual filtering. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[5]  S. Yantis,et al.  Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: voluntary versus automatic allocation. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[7]  E. Maylor,et al.  Inhibitory component of externally controlled covert orienting in visual space. , 1985, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  Derrick G. Watson,et al.  Visual marking: Evidence for inhibition using a probe-dot detection paradigm , 2000, Perception & psychophysics.

[9]  R. D. Wright,et al.  Inhibition-of-return at multiple locations in visual space. , 1996, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[10]  S. Yantis,et al.  Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search. , 1984 .

[11]  P. Jolicoeur,et al.  A Solution to the Effect of Sample Size on Outlier Elimination , 1994 .

[12]  Ian M. Thornton,et al.  Do we keep track of where we've been or what we've done? , 2000 .

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

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

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

[16]  D. Bouwhuis,et al.  Attention and performance X : control of language processes , 1986 .

[17]  R. Klein,et al.  Categories of cognitive inhibition with reference to attention. , 1994 .

[18]  A. Treisman,et al.  Automaticity and preattentive processing. , 1992, The American journal of psychology.

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

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

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

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

[23]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  Visual marking of old objects , 1998 .

[24]  G. Logan,et al.  Attention and automaticity: Toward a theoretical integration , 1999 .

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

[26]  D G Watson,et al.  Visual marking in moving displays: Feature-based inhibition is not necessary , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[27]  Hermann J. Miiller,et al.  Probing Distractor Inhibition in Visual Search: Inhibition of Return , 2000 .

[28]  R. Klein,et al.  Inhibition of return to color: A replication and nonextension of Law, Pratt, and Abrams (1995) , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[29]  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.

[30]  R A Abrams,et al.  Color-based inhibition of return , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[31]  R. Klein,et al.  Inhibition of return , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[32]  A. Nobre,et al.  Where and When to Pay Attention: The Neural Systems for Directing Attention to Spatial Locations and to Time Intervals as Revealed by Both PET and fMRI , 1998, The Journal of Neuroscience.

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

[34]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Visual Marking of Locations and Feature Maps: Evidence from Within-dimension Defined Conjunctions , 1999 .

[35]  G. Humphreys,et al.  When visual marking meets the attentional blink: More evidence for top-down, limited capacity inhibition , 2002 .

[36]  Alan Kingstone,et al.  Combining Expectancies , 1992 .

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

[38]  T. Carr,et al.  Inhibitory Processes in Attention, Memory and Language , 1994 .

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

[40]  Olaf B. Paulson,et al.  Parieto–Occipital Areas Involved in Efficient Filtering in Search: A Time Course Analysis of Visual Marking using Behavioural and Functional Imaging Procedures , 2004, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

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

[42]  G. Logan.  Toward an instance theory of automatization. , 1988 .

[43]  Derrick G. Watson,et al.  Fractionating the preview benefit in search: dual-task decomposition of visual marking by timing and modality. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[44]  G. Logan.  Repetition priming and automaticity: Common underlying mechanisms? , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.

[45]  S. Yantis,et al.  Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: evidence from visual search. , 1984, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.