Search for multiple targets:Remember the targets, forget the search

Perception and Psychophysics

Volumn 63, Issue 2, 2001, Pages 272-285

  Horowitz, Todd S ^a   Wolfe, Jeremy M ^a  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; ATTENTION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; HUMAN; PATTERN RECOGNITION; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REACTION TIME; RECALL;

ATTENTION; DISCRIMINATION LEARNING; HUMANS; MENTAL RECALL; PATTERN RECOGNITION, VISUAL; PSYCHOPHYSICS; REACTION TIME;

EID: 0035258398     PISSN: 00315117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03194468     Document Type: Article

References (104)

1. ABRAMS, R. A., & DOBKIN, R. S. (1994). Inhibition of return: Effects of attentional cuing on eye movement latencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 467-477.
2. ABRAMS, R. A., OONK, H. M., & PRATT, J. (1998). Fixation point offsets facilitate endogenous saccades. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 201-208.
3. ANDERSON, J. R., & SCHOOLER, L. J. (1991). Reflections of the environment in memory. Psychological Science, 2, 396-408.
4. ARANI, T., KARWAN, M. H., & DRURY, C. G. (1984). A variable-memory model of search. Human Factors, 26, 631-639.
5. BARBUR, J. L., FORSYTH, P. M., & WOODING, D. S. (1993). Eye movements and search performance. In D. Brogan, A. Gale, & K. Carr (Eds.), Visual search 2 (pp. 253-264). London: Taylor & Francis.
6. BLOOMFIELD, J. R. (1972). Visual search in complex fields: Size differences between target disc and surrounding discs. Human Factors, 14, 139-148.
7. BRIAND, K. A., & KLEIN, R. M. (1987). Is Posners "beam" the same as Treisman's "glue"? On the relation between visual orienting and feature integration theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 13, 228-241.
8. CARRASCO, M., EVERT, D. L., CHANG, I., & KATZ, S. M. (1995). The eccentricity effect: Target eccentricity affects performance on conjunction searches. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 1241-1261.
9. CARRASCO, M., & FRIEDER, K. S. (1997). Cortical magnification neutralizes the eccentricity effect in visual search. Vision Research, 37, 63-82.
10. CHAN, A. H., & COURTNEY, A. J. (1998). Revising and validating the random search model for competitive search. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 87, 251-260.
11. CHEAL, M., CHASTAIN, G., & LYON, D. R. (1998). Inhibition of return in visual identification tasks. Visual Cognition, 5, 365-388.
12. CHUN, M. M., & JIANG, Y. (1998). Contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 28-71.
13. CHUN, M. M., & POTTER, M. C. (1995). A two-stage model for multiple target detection in rapid serial visual presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 109-127.
14. CHUN, M. M., & WOLFE, J. M. (1996). Just say no: How are visual searches terminated when there is no target present? Cognitive Psychology, 30, 39-78.
15. COURTNEY, A. J., & GUAN, L. (1996). Visual search performance with complete and incomplete visual lobe areas. Ergonomics, 39, 749-756.
16. DANZIGER, S., KINGSTONE, A., & SNYDER, J. J. (1998). Inhibition of return to successively stimulated locations in a sequential visual search paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1467-1475.
17. DOWNING, P. E. (1999). Attentional consequences of maintaining an object in visual working memory. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 40, S753.
18. DUNCAN, J., & HUMPHREYS, G. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96, 433-458.
19. DUNCAN, J., & HUMPHREYS, G. (1992). Beyond the search surface: Visual search and attentional engagement. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 578-588.
20. DUNCAN, J., WARD, R., & SHAPIRO, K. L. (1994). Direct measurement of attentional dwell time in human vision. Nature, 369, 313-315.
21. ECKSTEIN, M. P. (1998). The lower visual search efficiency for conjunctions is due to noise and not serial attentional processing. Psychological Science, 9, 111-118.
22. ECKSTEIN, M. P., THOMAS, J. P., PALMER, J., & SHIMOZAKI, S. S. (2000). A signal detection model predicts the effects of set size on visual search accuracy for feature, conjunction, triple conjunction, and disjunction displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 425-451.
23. ENGEL, F. L. (1977). Visual conspicuity, visual search and fixation tendencies of the eye. Vision Research, 17, 95-108.
24. ERIKSEN, C. W. (1988). A source of error in attempts to distinguish coactivation from separate activation in the perception of redundant targets. Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 191-193.
25. ESTES, W. K., & TAYLOR, H. A. (1966). Visual detection in relation to display size and redundancy of critical elements. Perception & Psychophysics, 1, 9-16.
26. GIBSON, B. S., Li, L., SKOW, E., BROWN, K., & COOKE, L. (2000). Searching for one versus two identical targets: When visual search has a memory. Psychological Science, 11, 324-327.
27. GROSSBERG, S., MINGOLLA, E., & Ross, W. D. (1994). A neural theory of attentive visual search: Interactions of boundary, surface, spatial, and object representations. Psychological Review, 101, 470-489.
28. HILLSTROM, A. P. (2000). Repetition effects in visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 800-817.
29. HILLSTROM, A. P., & LOGAN, G. D. (1998). Decomposing visual search: Evidence of multiple item-specific skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1385-1398.
30. HOCK, H. S., ROSENTHAL, A., & STENQUIST, P. (1985). The category effect in visual search: Practice effects on catch trials. Perception & Psychophysics, 37, 73-80.
31. HOROWITZ, T. S., & WOLFE, J. M. (1998). Visual search has no memory. Nature, 394, 575-577.
32. IRWIN, D. E., BROWN, J. S., & SUN, J.-S. (1988). Visual masking and visual integration across saccadic eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 117, 276-287.
33. IRWIN, D. E., ZACKS, J. L., & BROWN, J. S. (1990). Visual memory and the perception of a stable visual environment. Perception & Psychophysics, 47, 35-46.
34. JOHNSON, N. L., & KOTZ, S. (1977). Urn models and their applications. New York: Wiley.
35. KINGSTONE, A., & PRATT, J. (1999). Inhibition of return is composed of attentional and oculomotor processes. Perception & Psychophysics, 61, 1046-1054.
36. KLEIN, R. (1988). Inhibitory tagging system facilitates visual search. Nature, 334, 430-431.
37. KLEIN, R. M., & MACINNES, W. J. (1999). Inhibition of return is a foraging facilitator in visual search. Psychological Science, 10, 346-352.
38. KLEIN, R. M., & TAYLOR, T. L. (1994). Categories of cognitive inhibition with reference to attention. In D. Dagenbach & T. H. Carr (Eds.), Inhibitory processes in attention, memory, and language (pp. 113-150). San Diego: Academic Press.
39. KOCH, C., & ULLMAN, S. (1985). Shifts in selective visual attention: Towards the underlying neural circuitry. Human Neurobiology, 4, 219-227.
40. KRUEGER, L. E. (1984). The category effect in visual search depends on physical rather than conceptual differences. Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 558-564.
41. LEVIN, D. T., MOMEN, N., DRIVDAHL, S. B., & SIMONS, D. J. (2000). Change blindness blindness: The metacognitive error of overestimating change-detection ability. Visual Cognition, 7, 397-412.
42. LEVIN, D. T. & SIMONS, D. J. (1997). Failure to detect changes to attended objects in motion pictures. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 4, 501-506.
43. LUPIÁÑEZ, J., MILÁN, E. G., TORNAY, F. J., MADRID, E., & TUDELA, P. (1997). Does IOR occur in discrimination tasks? Yes, it does, but later. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 1241-1254.
44. LUPIÁÑEZ, J., & MILLIKEN, B. (1999) Inhibition of return and the attentional set for integrating versus differentiating information. Journal of General Psychology, 126, 392-418.
45. MALJKOVIC, V., & NAKAYAMA, K. (1994). Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features. Memory & Cognition, 22, 657-672.
46. MALJKOVIC, V., & NAKAYAMA, K. (1996). Priming of pop-out: II. The role of position. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 977-991.
47. MAYLOR, E. A. (1985). Facilitatory and inhibitory components of orienting in visual space. In M. I. Posner & O. S. M. Marin (Eds.), Attention and performance XI (pp. 189-204). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
48. MILLER, J., & LOPES, A. (1991). Bias produced by fast guessing in distribution-based tests of race models. Perception & Psychophysics, 50, 584-590.
49. MONDOR, T. A., BREAU, L. M., & MILLIKEN, B. (1998). Inhibitory processes in auditory selective attention: Evidence of location-based and frequency-based inhibition of return. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 296-302.
50. MOORE, C. M., & WOLFE, J. M. (in press). Getting beyond the serial parallel debate in visual search: A hybrid approach. In K. Shapiro (Ed.), The limits of attention: Temporal constraints on human information processing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
51. MORAY, N. (1969). Attention: Selective processing in vision and hearing. London: Hutchinson.
52. MOYER, R. S., & LANDAUER, T. K. (1967). Time required for judgements of numerical inequality. Nature, 215, 1519-1520.
53. MÜLLER, H., & VON MÜHLENEN, A. (2000). Probing distractor inhibition in visual search: Inhibition of return. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 26, 1591-1605.
54. OLIVERS, C. N. L., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (1999, November). Visual marking is distinct from inhibition of return. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Los Angeles.
55. OLIVERS, C. N. L., WATSON, D. G., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (1999). Visual marking of locations and feature maps: Evidence from within-dimension defined conjunctions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 52A, 679-715.
56. OONK, H. M., & ABRAMS, R. A. (1998). New perceptual objects that capture attention produce inhibition of return. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 510-515.
57. O'REGAN, J. K. (1992). Solving the "real" mysteries of visual perception: The world as an outside memory. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 461-488.
58. O'REGAN, J. K., RENSINK, R. A., & CLARK, J. J. (1999). Change-blindness as a result of "mudsplashes." Nature, 398, 34.
59. PALMER, J. (1995). Attention in visual search: Distinguishing four causes of a set-size effect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 118-123.
60. POSNER, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention: The VIIth Sir Frederic Bartlett Lecture. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3-25.
61. POSNER, M. I., & COHEN, Y. (1984). Components of attention. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.), Attention and performance X (pp. 55-66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
62. PRATT, J. (1995). Inhibition of return in a discrimination task. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 117-120.
63. PRATT, J., & ABRAMS, R. A. (1999). Inhibition of return in discrimination tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 229-242.
64. PRATT, J., KINGSTONE, A., & KHOE, W. (1997). Inhibition of return in location-and identity-based choice decision tasks. Perception & Psychophysics, 59, 964-971.
65. PRINZMETAL, W., PRESTI, D. E., & POSNER, M. I. (1986). Does attention affect visual feature integration? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 12, 361-369.
66. PYLYSHYN, Z. (1989). The role of location indexes in spatial perception: A sketch of the FINST spatial-index model. Cognition, 32, 65-97.
67. RAFAL, R. D., CALABRESI, P. A., BRENNAN, C. W., & SCIOLTO, T. K. (1989). Saccade preparation inhibits reorienting to recently attended locations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 15, 673-685.
68. RATCLIFF, R., VAN ZANDT, T., & MCKOON, G. (1999). Connectionist and diffusion models of reaction time. Psychological Review, 106, 261-300.
69. RAYNER, K., & POLLATSEK, A. (1992). Eye movements and scene perception. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 46, 342-376.
70. RENSINK, R. A. (2000). Seeing, sensing, and scrutinizing. Vision Research, 40, 1469-1487.
71. RENSINK, R. A., O'REGAN, J. K., & CLARK, J. J. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8, 368-373.
72. RENSINK, R. A., O'REGAN, J. K., & CLARK, J. J. (2000). On the failure to detect changes in scenes across brief interruptions. Visual Cognition. 7, 127-145.
73. REUTER-LORENZ, P. A., JHA, A. P., & ROSENQUIST, J. N. (1996). What is inhibited in inhibition of return? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 22, 1241-1254.
74. SAPIR, A., SOROKER, N., BERGER, A., & HENIK, A. (1999). Inhibition of return in spatial attention: Direct evidence for collicular generation. Nature Neuroscience, 2, 1053-1054.
75. SCHACTER, D. L. (1999). The seven sins of memory: Insights from psychology and cognitive neuroscience. American Psychologist, 54, 182-203.
76. SCHNEIDER, W., & SHIFFRIN, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1-66.
77. SCHNEIDER, W. X. (1995). VAM: A neuro-cognitive model for visual attention control of segmentation, object recognition, and space-based motor action. Visual Cognition, 2, 331-376.
78. SIMONS, D. J., & LEVIN, D. T. (1998). Failure to detect changes to people during a real-world interaction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 644-649.
79. SNYDER, J. J., & KINGSTONE, A. (2000). Inhibition of return and visual search: How many separate loci are inhibited? Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 452-458.
80. STERNBERG, S. (1969). High-speed scanning in human memory. Science, 153, 652-654.
81. TAKEDA, Y. & YAGI, A. (2000). Inhibitory tagging in visual search can be found if search stimuli remain visible. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 927-934.
82. TAYLOR, S. E. (1981). A categorization approach to stereotyping. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 88-114). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
83. TAYLOR, T. L., & KLEIN, R. M. (1998). On the causes and effects of inhibition of return. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 625-643.
84. TERRY, K. M., VALDES, L. A., & NEILL, W. T. (1994). Does "inhibition of return" occur in discrimination tasks? Perception & Psychophysics, 55, 279-286.
85. THEEUWES, J., KRAMER, A. F., & ATCHLEY, P. (1998). Visual marking of old objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 130-134.
86. TIPPER, S. P., DRIVER, J., & WEAVER, B. (1991). Object-centered inhibition of return of visual attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 43A, 289-298.
87. TIPPER, S. P., WEAVER, B., JERREAT, L. M., & BURAK, A. L. (1994). Object-based and environment-based inhibition of return of visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 478-499.
88. TIPPER, S. P., WEAVER, B., & WATSON, F. L. (1996). Inhibition of return to successively cued spatial locations: Commentary on Pratt and Abrams (1995). Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 22, 1289-1293.
89. TOWNSEND, J. T. (1990). Serial vs. parallel processing: Sometimes they look like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but they can (and should) be distinguished. Psychological Science, 1, 46-54.
90. TREISMAN, A. (1985). Preattentive processing in vision. Computer Vision, Graphics. & Image Processing, 31, 156-177.
91. TREISMAN, A., & GELADE, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
92. TREISMAN, A., & SATO, S. (1990). Conjunction search revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 16, 459-478.
93. WARD, R., & MCCLELLAND, J. L. (1989). Conjunctive search for one and two identical targets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 15, 664-672.
94. WATSON, D. G., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (1997). Visual marking: Prioritizing selection for new objects by top-down attentional inhibition of old objects. Psychological Review, 104, 90-122.
95. WATSON, D. G., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (1998). Visual marking of moving objects: A role for top-down feature-based inhibition in selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 946-962.
96. WATSON, D. G., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (2000). Visual marking: Evidence for inhibition using a probe-dot detection paradigm. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 471-481.
97. WOLFE, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 202-238.
98. WOLFE, J. M., O'NEILL, P., & BENNETT, S. C. (1998). Why are there eccentricity effects in visual search? Visual and attentional hypotheses. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 140-156.
99. WOLFE, J. M., & POKORNY, C. W. (1990). Inhibitory tagging in visual search: A failure to replicate. Perception & Psychophysics, 48, 357-362.
100. WOLFORD, G. L., WESSEL, D. L., & ESTES, W. K. (1968). Further evidence concerning scanning and sampling assumptions of visual detection models. Perception & Psychophysics, 3, 439-444.
101. WRIGHT, R. D. (1994). Shifts of visual attention to multiple simultaneous location cues. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 205-217.
102. WRIGHT, R. D., & RICHARD, C. M. (1996). Inhibition of return at multiple locations in visual space. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 50, 324-327.
103. YANTIS, S., MEYER, D. E., & SMITH, J. E. K. (1991). Analyses of multinomial mixture distributions: New test for stochastic models of cognition and action. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 350-374.
104. ZENGER, B., & FAHLE, M. (1997). Missed targets are more frequent than false alarms: A model for error rates in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 23, 1783-1791.