System reconfiguration, not resource depletion, determines the efficiency of visual search

Perception and Psychophysics

Volumn 67, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 1080-1087

  Lollo, Vincent D I ^a   Smilek, Daniel ^b   Kawahara, Jun Ichiro ^c   Ghorashi, S M Shahab ^d  

^a SIMON FRASER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF WATERLOO   (Canada)

^c HIROSHIMA UNIVERSITY   (Japan)

^d UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 28844443153     PISSN: 00315117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/bf03193633     Document Type: Review

References (23)

1. DI LOLLO, V., ENNS, J. T., & RENSINK, R. A. (2000). Competition for consciousness among visual events: The psychophysics of reentrant visual processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129, 481-507.
2. DI LOLLO, V., KAWAHARA, J., ZUVIC, S. M., & VISSER, T. A. W. (2001). The preattentive emperor has no clothes: A dynamic redressing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 479-492.
3. DUNCAN, J., & HUMPHREYS, G. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96, 433-458.
4. DUNCAN, J., WARD, R., & SHAPIRO, K. L. (1994). Direct measurement of attentional dwell time in human vision. Nature, 369, 313-315.
5. GROSSBERG, S. (1995). The attentive brain. American Scientist, 83, 438-449.
6. JAMES, W. (1950). The principles of psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Dover. [Original work published 1890]
7. JIANO, Y., & CHUN, M. M. (2001). Selective attention modulates implicit learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 1105-1124.
8. JOLICŒUR, P. (1999). Concurrent response-selection demands modulate the attentional blink. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 25, 1097-1113.
9. KAHNEMAN, D. (1973). Attention and effort. New York: Prentice Hall.
10. KAWAHARA, J.-I., ZUVIC, S. M., ENNS, J. T., & DI LOLLO, V. (2003). Task switching mediates the attentional blink even without backward masking. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 339-351.
11. LEE, T. S., MUMFORD, D., ROMERO, R., & LAMME, V. (1998). The role of the primary visual cortex in higher level vision. Vision Research, 38, 2429-2454.
12. MONSELL. S. (1996). Control of mental processes. In V. Bruce (Ed.), Unsolved mysteries of the mind: Tutorial essays in cognition (pp. 93-148). Howe, UK: Erlbaum.
13. MUMFORD, D. (1992). On the computational architecture of the neocortex: II. The role of cortico-cortical loops. Biological Cybernetics, 66, 241-251.
14. PASHLER, H. E. (1989). Dissociations and dependencies between speed and accuracy: Evidence for a two-component theory of divided attention in simple tasks. Cognitive Psychology, 21, 469-514.
15. PASHLER, H. E. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. SAGI, D., & JULESZ, B. (1985). "Where" and "What" in vision. Science, 228, 1217-1219.
17. SELFRIDGE, O. (1959). Pandemonium: A paradigm for learning. In D. V. Blake & A. M. Uttley (Eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on the Mechanization of Thought Processes. London: HM Stationery Office.
18. TAYLOR, M. M., & CREELMAN, C. D. (1967). PEST: Efficient estimates on probability functions. Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 41, 782-787.
19. VISSER, T. A. W., BISCHOF, W. F., & DI LOLLO, V. (1999). Attentional switching in spatial and nonspatial domains: Evidence from the attentional blink. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 458-469.
20. WOLFE, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 202-238.
21. WOLFE, J. M. (1998). What can 1 million trials tell us about visual search? Psychological Science, 9, 33-39.
22. WOLFE, J. M., CAVE, K. R., & FRANZEL, S. L. (1989). Guided search: An alternative to the feature-integration model for visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 15, 419-433.
23. WOODMAN, G. F., VOGEL, E. K., & LUCK, S. J. (2001). Visual search remains efficient when visual working memory is full. Psychological Science, 12, 219-224.