Distractor familiarity leads to more efficient visual search for complex stimuli

Perception and Psychophysics

Volumn 67, Issue 6, 2005, Pages 1016-1031

  Mruczek, Ryan E B ^a   Sheinberg, David L ^a,b  

^a BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 28844486941     PISSN: 00315117     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193628     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. BALL, K. K., BEARD, B. L., ROENKER, D. L., MILLER, R. L., & GRIGGS, D. S. (1988). Age and visual search: Expanding the useful field of view. Journal of the Optical Society of America A, 5, 2210-2219.
2. CARPENTER, R. H. S.(1988). Movements of the eyes (2nd ed.). London: Pion.
3. CARRASCO, M., EVERT, D. L., CHANG, I., & KATZ, S. M. (1995). The eccentricity effect: Target eccentricity affects performance on conjunction searches. Perception & Psychophynics, 57, 1241-1261.
4. CARRASCO, M., & FRIEDER, K. S. (1997). Cortical magnification neutralizes the eccentricity effect in visual search. Vision Research, 37, 63-82.
5. CHUN, M. M., & JIANG, Y. (1999). Top-down attentional guidance based on implicit learning of visual search. Psychological Science, 10, 360-365.
6. DUNCAN, J., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96, 433-458.
7. FRITH, U. (1974). A curious effect with reversed letters explained by a theory of schema. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 113-116.
8. GREENE, H. H., & RAYNER, K. (2001). Eye movements and familiarity effects in visual search. Vision Research, 41, 3763-3773.
9. KARNI, A., & SAGI, D. (1991). Where practice makes perfect in texture discrimination: Evidence for primary visual cortex plasticity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 88, 4966-4970.
10. KOBATAKE, E., WANG, G., & TANAKA, K. (1998). Effects of shape-discrimination training on the selectivity of inferotemporal cells in adult monkeys. Journal of Neurophysiology, 80, 324-330.
11. LAARNI, J., & NYMAN, G. (1997). Shape priming in a complex visual search task. Vision Research, 37, 2561-2572.
12. LOGOTHETIS, N. K., PAULS, J., & POGGIO, T. (1995). Shape representation in the inferior temporal cortex of monkeys. Current Biology, 5, 552-563.
13. MALINOWSKI, P., & HÜBNER, R. (2001). The effect of familiarity on visual-search performance: Evidence for learned basic features. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 458-463.
14. MIYASHITA, Y., DATE, A., & OKUNO, H. (1993). Configurational encoding of complex visual forms by single neurons of monkey temporal cortex, Neuropsychologia, 31, 1119-1131.
15. 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.
16. PAVLOVSKAYA, M., RING, H., GROSWASSER, Z., KEREN, O., & HOCHSTEIN, S. (2001). Visual search in peripheral vision: Learning effects and set-size dependence. Spatial Vision, 14, 151-173.
17. REICHER, G. M., SNYDER, C. R. R., & RICHARDS, J. T. (1976). Familiarity of background characters in visual scanning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 2, 522-530.
18. RICHARDS, J. T., & REICHER, G. M. (1978). The effect of background familiarity in visual search: An analysis of underlying factors. Perception & Psychophysics, 23, 499-505.
19. ROLLS, E. T., BAYLIS, G. C., HASSELMO, M. E., & NALWA, V. (1989). The effect of learning on the face selective responses of neurons in the cortex in the superior temporal sulcus of the monkey. Experimental Brain Research, 76, 153-164.
20. ROSCH, E., MERVIS, C. B., GRAY, W. D., JOHNSON, D. M., & BOYES-BRAEM, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology, 8, 382-439.
21. SCHNEIDER, W., & SHIFFRIN, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1-66.
22. SHEN, J., & REINGOLD, E. M. (2001). Visual search asymmetry: The influence of stimulus familiarity and low-level features. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 464-475.
23. SHIFFRIN, R. M., & SCHNEIDER, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127-190.
24. SIGALA, N., & LOGOTHETIS, N. K. (2002). Visual categorization shapes feature selectivity in the primate temporal cortex. Nature, 415, 318-320.
25. SIRETEANU, R., & RETTENBACH, R. (1995). Perceptual learning in visual search: Fast, enduring, but non-specific. Vision Research, 35, 2037-2043.
26. SIRETEANU, R., & RETTENBACH, R. (2000). Perceptual learning in visual search generalizes over tasks, locations, and eyes. Vision Research, 40, 2925-2949.
27. TREISM AN, A. (1982). Perceptual grouping and attention in visual search for features and for objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 8, 194-214.
28. TREISMAN, A. (1993). The perception of features and objects. In A. Baddeley & L. Weiskrantz (Eds.), Attention: Selection, awareness and control (pp. 5-35). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
29. TREISMAN, A., & SOUTHER, J. (1985). Search asymmetry: A diagnostic for preattentive processing of separable features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 285-310.
30. WANG, Q., CAVANAGH, P., & GREEN, M. (1994). Familiarity and pop-out in visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 56, 495-500.
31. WILLIAMS, C. C., HENDERSON, J. M., & ZACKS, R. T. (2005). Incidental visual memory for targets and distractors in visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 816-827.
32. WOLFE, J. M. (1998). What can 1 million trials tell us about visual search? Psychological Review, 9, 33-39.
33. 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.