Guidance toward and away from distractors in repeated visual search.

When searching for two targets consecutively in the same display, participants use memory of recently fixated distractors that become the target in the second search to find that target more quickly. Here we ask whether participants are also using memory for fixated distractors that do not become the target. In Experiment 1 we show that search is faster overall in the second search regardless of whether or not the second search target was fixated in the first search. We replicate this effect in Experiment 2 for different display sizes and further show that the effect is a result of the prioritization of locations that are more likely to contain the target. This suggests that representations of the fixated distractor items are retained across the two searches and that these representations can be used flexibly to optimize search performance. Furthermore, this suggests that the short-term memory processes that support search across consecutive searches not only facilitate guidance toward the target but also allow distractors to be excluded from the search process.

[1]  Christopher A. Dickinson,et al.  Memory for the search path: Evidence for a high-capacity representation of search history , 2007, Vision Research.

[2]  Matthew D. Hilchey,et al.  Driving forces in free visual search: An ethology , 2014, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[3]  Melina A. Kunar,et al.  The role of memory and restricted context in repeated visual search , 2008, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  Stephen D. Goldinger,et al.  Learning in repeated visual search , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

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

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

[7]  A. Hollingworth Task specificity and the influence of memory on visual search: comment on Võ and Wolfe (2012). , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[8]  G. McConkie,et al.  The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading , 1975 .

[9]  C. Körner,et al.  Inhibition of return functions within but not across searches , 2011, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[10]  Jason T. Arita,et al.  Templates for rejection: configuring attention to ignore task-irrelevant features. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  Alejandro Lleras,et al.  Inhibitory tagging in an interrupted visual search , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[12]  D. E. Irwin,et al.  How Much Memory Does Oculomotor Search Have? , 2003, Psychological science.

[13]  R. Klein,et al.  Inhibition of Return is a Foraging Facilitator in Visual Search , 1999 .

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

[15]  C. Körner,et al.  Memory processes in multiple-target visual search , 2007, Psychological research.

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

[17]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  Rapid Resumption of Interrupted Visual Search , 2005, Psychological science.

[18]  Iain D Gilchrist,et al.  Visual Search in the Real World: Evidence for the Formation of Distractor Representations , 2011, Perception.

[19]  I. Hooge,et al.  Inhibition of return is not a foraging facilitator in saccadic search and free viewing , 2005, Vision Research.

[20]  G. Zelinsky,et al.  A new look at novelty effects: Guiding search away from old distractors , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[21]  Daniel Smilek,et al.  Memory benefits during visual search depend on difficulty , 2012 .

[22]  Steven J Luck,et al.  Active suppression of distractors that match the contents of visual working memory , 2011, Visual cognition.

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

[24]  H. BOUMA,et al.  Interaction Effects in Parafoveal Letter Recognition , 1970, Nature.

[25]  R. Dodge Visual perception during eye movement , 1900 .

[26]  D. Burr,et al.  Changes in visual perception at the time of saccades , 2001, Trends in Neurosciences.

[27]  Carrick C. Williams,et al.  Incidental visual memory for targets and distractors in visual search , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[28]  Jay Pratt,et al.  Rapid Communication: Finding memory in search: The effect of visual working memory load on visual search , 2010, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[29]  G. Woodman,et al.  Do the contents of visual working memory automatically influence attentional selection during visual search? , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

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

[31]  S. Tipper,et al.  Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology , 1948, Nature.

[32]  Daniel Smilek,et al.  Item-specific location memory in visual search , 2010, Vision Research.

[33]  Christof Körner,et al.  Finding a new target in an old display: Evidence for a memory recency effect in visual search , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[34]  C. Körner,et al.  Searching the same display twice: Properties of short-term memory in repeated search , 2013, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.