On the efficiency of visual selective attention: Efficient Visual Search Leads to Inefficient Distractor Rejection

Psychological Science

Volumn 8, Issue 5, 1997, Pages 395-396

  Lavie, Nilli ^a   Cox, Sally ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b MRC COGNITION AND BRAIN SCIENCES UNIT   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0005669724     PISSN: 09567976     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1997.tb00432.x     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Duncan, J., & Humphreys, G.W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96, 433-158.
2. Eriksen, B.A., & Eriksen, C.W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a non search task. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 143-149.
3. Fisher, D.L. (1982). Limited-channel models of automatic detection: Capacity and scanning in visual search. Psychological Review, 89, 662-692.
4. Gatti, S.V., & Egeth, H.E. (1978). Failure of spatial selectivity in vision. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 11, 181-184.
5. Humphreys, G.W., & Muller, H.J. (1993). SEarch via Recursive Rejection (SERR): A connectionist model of visual search. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 43-110.
6. Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. (1992). The reviewing of object files: Object-specific integration of information. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 175-219.
7. Lavie, N. (1995a). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 451-468.
8. Lavie, N. (1995b, September). The roles of stimulus degradation versus resource limitation in selective visual attention. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the European Society for Cognitive Psychology, Rome.
9. Lavie, N., & Fox, E. (1997). The role of perceptual load in negative priming. Manuscript submitted for publication.
10. Lavie, N., & Tsal, Y. (1994). Perceptual load as a major determinant of the locus of selection in visual attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 183-197.
11. Mack, A., Tang, B., Tuma, R., Kahn, S., & Rock, I. (1992). Perceptual organization and attention. Cognitive Psychology, 24, 475-501.
12. Neisser, U. (1976). Cognition and reality: Principles and implications of cognitive psychology, San Francisco: Freeman.
13. Pylyshyn, Z., Burkell, J., Fisher, B., & Sears, C. (1994). Multiple parallel access in visual attention. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 260-283.
14. Tipper, S.P. (1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory effects of ignored primes. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 37A, 571-590.
15. Treisman, A. (1991). Search, similarity, and integration of features between and within dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 652-676.
16. Treisman, A. (1992). Spreading suppression or feature integration? A reply to Duncan and Humphreys (1992). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 589-593.
17. Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
18. Wolfe, J.M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 202-238.
19. Yantis, S., & Jones, E. (1991). Mechanisms of attentional selection: Temporally modulated priority tags. Perception & Psychophysics, 50, 166-178.