Searching for unknown feature targets on more than one dimension: Investigating a “dimension-weighting” account

Search for odd-one-out feature targets takes longer when the target can be present in one of several dimensions as opposed to only one dimension (Müller, Heller, & Ziegler, 1995; Treisman, 1988). Müller et al. attributed this cost to the need to discern the target dimension. They proposed adimension-weighting account, in which master map units compute, in parallel, the weighted sum of dimension-specific saliency signals. If the target dimension is known in advance, signals from that dimension are amplified. But if the target dimension is unknown, it is determined in a process that shifts weight from the nontarget to the target dimension. The weight pattern thus generated persists across trials, producing intertrial facilitation for a target (trialn+1) dimensionally identical to the preceding target (trialn). In the present study, we employed a set of new tasks in order to reexamine and extend this account. Targets were defined along two possible dimensions (color or orientation) and could take on one of two feature values (e.g., red or blue). Experiments 1 and 2 required absent/present and color/orientation discrimination of a single target, respectively. They showed that (1) both tasks involveweight shifting, though (explicitly) discerning the dimension of a target requires some process additional to simply detecting its presence; and (2) the intertrial facilitation is indeed (largely) dimension specific rather than feature specific in nature. In Experiment 3, the task was to count the number of targets in a display (either three or four), which could be either dimensionally the same (all color or all orientation) or mixed (some color and some orientation). As predicted by the dimension-weighting account, enumerating four targets all defined within the same dimension was faster than counting three such targets or mixed targets defined in two dimensions.

[1]  E. Land.  The retinex theory of color vision. , 1977, Scientific American.

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

[3]  Leslie G. Ungerleider.  Two cortical visual systems , 1982 .

[4]  B. Julesz,et al.  Detection versus Discrimination of Visual Orientation , 1984, Perception.

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

[6]  B Julesz,et al.  "Where" and "what" in vision. , 1985, Science.

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

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

[9]  H Egeth,et al.  Subitizing: Direct apprehension or serial processing? , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[11]  O J Braddick,et al.  ‘Where’ and ‘What’ in Visual Search , 1989, Perception.

[12]  H J Müller,et al.  Spatial Cueing and the Relation between the Accuracy of “Where” and “What” Decisions in Visual Search , 1989, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[13]  D. LaBerge,et al.  Theory of attentional operations in shape identification. , 1989 .

[14]  David LaBerge,et al.  Thalamic and Cortical Mechanisms of Attention Suggested by Recent Positron Emission Tomographic Experiments , 1990, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[15]  H. Pashler,et al.  Close binding of identity and location in visual feature perception. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  M Corbetta,et al.  Attentional modulation of neural processing of shape, color, and velocity in humans. , 1990, Science.

[17]  M. Raichle,et al.  The anterior cingulate cortex mediates processing selection in the Stroop attentional conflict paradigm. , 1990, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[18]  A. Treisman,et al.  Conjunction search revisited , 1990 .

[19]  Jeremy M Wolfe,et al.  Modeling the role of parallel processing in visual search , 1990, Cognitive Psychology.

[20]  H. C. Nothdurft,et al.  Texture segmentation and pop-out from orientation contrast , 1991, Vision Research.

[21]  M. Corbetta,et al.  Selective and divided attention during visual discriminations of shape, color, and speed: functional anatomy by positron emission tomography , 1991, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[22]  M. Goodale,et al.  Separate visual pathways for perception and action , 1992, Trends in Neurosciences.

[23]  H. Nothdurft.  Feature analysis and the role of similarity in preattentive vision , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[24]  D. Kahneman,et al.  The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information , 1992, Cognitive Psychology.

[25]  Marvin M. Chun,et al.  Making use of texton gradients: visual search and perceptual grouping exploit the same parallel processes in different ways , 1995 .

[26]  Z. Pylyshyn,et al.  What enumeration studies can show us about spatial attention: evidence for limited capacity preattentive processing. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  S. Zeki.  A vision of the brain , 1993 .

[28]  H. Nothdurft.  The role of features in preattentive vision: Comparison of orientation, motion and color cues , 1993, Vision Research.

[29]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features , 1994, Memory & cognition.

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

[31]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  SEARCH FOR A CONJUNCTIVELY DEFINED TARGET CAN BE SELECTIVELY LIMITED TO A COLOR-DEFINED SUBSET OF ELEMENTS , 1995 .

[32]  H J Müller,et al.  Visual search for singleton feature targets within and across feature dimensions , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.