Divided attention and visual search for simple versus complex features

Under what search conditions does attention affect perceptual processes, resulting in capacity limitations, rather than affecting noisy decision-making processes? Does parallel or serial processing cause the capacity limitations? To address these issues, we varied stimulus complexity, set size, and whether distractors were mirror images of the target. Both target detection and localization produced similar patterns of results. Capacity limitations only occurred for complex stimuli used in within-object conjunction searches. Parallel processing, rather than serial processing, probably caused these capacity limitations. Moreover, although mirror-image symmetry adversely affected early visual processing, it did not place additional demands on attention.

[1]  M. Carrasco,et al.  The eccentricity effect: Target eccentricity affects performance on conjunction searches , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

[2]  Jon Driver,et al.  Obligatory edge-assignment in vision: The role of figure and part segmentation in symmetry detection. , 1995 .

[3]  Terry Shikano,et al.  Perceptual processing and search efficiency of young and older adults in a simple-feature search task: a staircase approach. , 2002, The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences.

[4]  B. C. Motter,et al.  The guidance of eye movements during active visual search , 1998, Vision Research.

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

[6]  J. Palmer.  Set-size effects in visual search: The effect of attention is independent of the stimulus for simple tasks , 1994, Vision Research.

[7]  P Kramer,et al.  Uncertainty about spatial frequency, spatial position, or contrast of visual patterns , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[8]  P. Bennett,et al.  Letter localization, not discrimination, is constrained by attention. , 1995, Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale.

[9]  J. Wolfe,et al.  The role of categorization in visual search for orientation. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[10]  David M. Greem,et al.  Variability of magnitude estimates: A timing theory analysis , 1974 .

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

[12]  M. Eckstein.  The Lower Visual Search Efficiency for Conjunctions Is Due to Noise and not Serial Attentional Processing , 1998 .

[13]  M Carrasco,et al.  The interaction of objective and subjective organizations in a localization search task , 1995, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[15]  Vision Research , 1961, Nature.

[16]  J. Palmer,et al.  Measuring the effect of attention on simple visual search. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  W. Geisler,et al.  Separation of low-level and high-level factors in complex tasks: visual search. , 1995, Psychological review.

[18]  D. M. Green,et al.  Signal detection theory and psychophysics , 1966 .

[19]  G. Logan.  Spatial attention and the apprehension of spatial relations. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[20]  Donald L. Fisher,et al.  Central capacity limits in consistent mapping, visual search tasks: Four channels or more? , 1984, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  James R. Bergen,et al.  Parallel versus serial processing in rapid pattern discrimination , 1983, Nature.

[22]  E. Põder,et al.  Search for feature and for relative position: measurement of capacity limitations , 1999, Vision Research.

[23]  D L Fisher,et al.  Understanding the central processing limit in consistent-mapping visual search tasks. , 1988, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[24]  C. L. M..  The Psychology of Attention , 1890, Nature.

[25]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Stimulus discriminability in visual search , 1994, Vision Research.

[26]  Marilyn L Shaw,et al.  Attending to multiple sources of information: I. The integration of information in decision making , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

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

[28]  B. Dosher,et al.  External noise distinguishes attention mechanisms , 1998, Vision Research.

[29]  R M Mulligan,et al.  Multimodal signal detection: Independent decisions vs. integration , 1980, Perception & psychophysics.

[30]  J. Wolfe,et al.  On the Role of Symmetry in Visual Search , 1992 .

[31]  C. Eriksen,et al.  Rate of information processing in visual perception: some results and methodological considerations. , 1969, Journal of experimental psychology.

[32]  Walter Schneider,et al.  Micro Experimental Laboratory: An integrated system for IBM PC compatibles , 1988 .

[33]  N. Graham.  Visual Pattern Analyzers , 1989 .

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

[35]  Preeti Verghese,et al.  The psychophysics of visual search , 2000, Vision Research.