Visual search: Efficiency continuum or distinct processes?

Psychonomic Bulletin and Review

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 742-746

  Haslam, Nick ^a   Porter, Matthew ^a   Rothschild, Louis ^a  

^a NEW SCHOOL FOR SOCIAL RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ALGORITHM; ARTICLE; HUMAN; VISION;

ALGORITHMS; HUMANS; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 0035751209     PISSN: 10699384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03196212     Document Type: Article

References (8)

1. DUNCAN. J., & HUMPHRIES, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96, 433-458.
2. EVERITT, B. S., & HAND, D. J. (1981). Finite mixture distributions. New York: Chapman & Hall.
3. MACLEAN, C. J., MORTON, N. E., ELSTON, R. C., & YEE, S. (1976). Skewness in commingled distributions. Biometrics, 32, 695-699.
4. MEEHL, P. E. (1995). Bootstraps taxometrics: Solving the classification problem in psychopathology. American Psychologist, 50, 266-275.
5. MURPHY, E. A. (1964). One cause? Many causes? The argument from the bimodal distribution. Journal of Chronic Diseases, 17, 301-324.
6. NAKAYAMA, K. (1990). The iconic bottleneck and the tenuous link between early visual processing and perception. In C. Blakemore (Ed.), Vision: Coding and efficiency (pp. 411-422). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
7. TREISMAN, A. (1993). The perception of features and objects. In A. Baddeley & L. Weiskrantz (Eds.), Attention: Selection, awareness, and control (pp. 5-35). Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.
8. WOLFE, J. M. (1998). What can 1 million trials tell us about visual search? Psychological Science, 9, 33-39.