Learning in repeated visual search

Visual search (e.g., finding a specific object in an array of other objects) is performed most effectively when people are able to ignore distracting nontargets. In repeated search, however, incidental learning of object identities may facilitate performance. In three experiments, with over 1,100 participants, we examined the extent to which search could be facilitated by object memory and by memory for spatial layouts. Participants searched for new targets (real-world, nameable objects) embedded among repeated distractors. To make the task more challenging, some participants performed search for multiple targets, increasing demands on visual working memory (WM). Following search, memory for search distractors was assessed using a surprise two-alternative forced choice recognition memory test with semantically matched foils. Search performance was facilitated by distractor object learning and by spatial memory; it was most robust when object identity was consistently tied to spatial locations and weakest (or absent) when object identities were inconsistent across trials. Incidental memory for distractors was better among participants who searched under high WM load, relative to low WM load. These results were observed when visual search included exhaustive-search trials (Experiment 1) or when all trials were self-terminating (Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, stimulus exposure was equated across WM load groups by presenting objects in a single-object stream; recognition accuracy was similar to that in Experiments 1 and 2. Together, the results suggest that people incidentally generate memory for nontarget objects encountered during search and that such memory can facilitate search performance.

[1]  C. Frith,et al.  The Role of Working Memory in Visual Selective Attention , 2001, Science.

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

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

[4]  Yuji Takeda,et al.  Selective learning of spatial configuration and object identity in visual search , 2004, Perception & psychophysics.

[5]  A. Hollingworth Object-position binding in visual memory for natural scenes and object arrays. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  David L. Sheinberg,et al.  Distractor familiarity leads to more efficient visual search for complex stimuli , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[8]  Michael F. Bunting,et al.  The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[9]  Helga C. Arsenio,et al.  An unbinding problem? The disintegration of visible, previously attended objects does not attract attention. , 2002, Journal of vision.

[10]  M. Manosevitz,et al.  High-Speed Scanning in Human Memory , 2022 .

[11]  Andrew R. A. Conway,et al.  A Resource Account of Inhibition , 1995 .

[12]  J. Henderson,et al.  Accurate visual memory for previously attended objects in natural scenes , 2002 .

[13]  Nick Donnelly,et al.  The cost of search for multiple targets: effects of practice and target similarity. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[14]  Jeffrey W. Cooney,et al.  Top-down suppression deficit underlies working memory impairment in normal aging , 2005, Nature Neuroscience.

[15]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Postattentive vision. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  Andrew R. A. Conway,et al.  The effect of memory load on negative priming: An individual differences investigation , 1999, Memory & cognition.

[17]  N. Cowan,et al.  The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: attention and memory in the classic selective listening procedure of Cherry (1953). , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[18]  E. Viding,et al.  Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. , 2004, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[19]  Andrew Hollingworth,et al.  The relationship between online visual representation of a scene and long-term scene memory. , 2005, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[20]  Yuhong V. Jiang,et al.  Implicit learning of ignored visual context. , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[21]  Joo-Hyun Song,et al.  Hyperspecificity in Visual Implicit Learning: Learning of Spatial Layout Is Contingent on Item Identity Contextual Cuing , 2022 .

[22]  F. Craik,et al.  Levels of Pro-cessing: A Framework for Memory Research , 1975 .

[23]  M. Chun,et al.  Top-Down Attentional Guidance Based on Implicit Learning of Visual Covariation , 1999 .

[24]  David Melcher,et al.  Accumulation and persistence of memory for natural scenes. , 2006, Journal of vision.

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

[26]  N. Lavie,et al.  The role of working memory in attentional capture , 2005, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

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

[28]  N. Moray Attention in Dichotic Listening: Affective Cues and the Influence of Instructions , 1959 .

[29]  J. Henderson,et al.  Incidental visual memory for objects in scenes , 2005 .

[30]  Kyle R. Cave,et al.  Costs in Searching for Two Targets: Dividing Search Across Target Types Could Improve Airport Security Screening , 2007 .

[31]  Carrick C. Williams Not all visual memories are created equal , 2010 .

[32]  A. Hollingworth Scene and position specificity in visual memory for objects. , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[33]  M. Chun,et al.  Implicit, long-term spatial contextual memory. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[34]  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.

[35]  Iain D Gilchrist,et al.  Visual Memory for Objects in Natural Scenes: From Fixations to Object Files , 2005, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

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

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