Object-based inhibitory priming in preview search: Evidence from the "top-up" procedure

Memory and Cognition

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 459-474

  Kunar, Melina A ^a,c   Humphreys, Glyn W ^b  

^a BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF BIRMINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

^c Visual Attention Laboratory   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; COLOR; FACILITATION; FEMALE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; MALE; NORMAL HUMAN; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL STIMULATION; ADOLESCENT; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); REACTION TIME; VISION;

ADOLESCENT; ADULT; FEMALE; HUMANS; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); MALE; REACTION TIME; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 33748857211     PISSN: 0090502X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/BF03193571     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. BRAINARD, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox. Spatial Vision, 10, 443-446.
2. BRAITHWAITE, J. J., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (2003). Inhibition and anticipation in visual search: Evidence from effects of color foreknowledge on preview search. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 213-237.
3. BRAITHWAITE, J. J., HUMPHREYS, G. W., WATSON, D. G., & HULLEMAN, J. (2005). Revisiting preview search at isoluminance: New onsets are not necessary for the preview advantage. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 1214-1228.
4. 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.
5. DONK, M., & THEEUWES, J. (2001). Visual marking beside the mark: Prioritizing selection by abrupt onsets. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 891-900.
6. DONK, M., & VERBURG, R. C. (2004). Prioritizing new elements with a brief preview period: Evidence against visual marking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 282-288.
7. FOX, E. (1995). Negative priming from ignored distractors in visual selection: A review. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 2, 145-173.
8. HUMPHREYS, G. W., KYLLINGSBAEK, S., WATSON, D. G., OLIVERS, C. N. L., LAW, I., & PAULSON, O. (2004). Parieto-occipital areas involved in efficient filtering in search: A time course analysis of visual marking using behavioural and functional imaging procedures. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 610-635.
9. HUMPHREYS, G. W., WATSON, D. G., & JOLICŒUR, P. (2002). Fractionating visual marking: Dual-task decomposition of the marking state by timing and modality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 640-660.
10. JIANG, Y., CHUN, M. M., & MARKS, L. E. (2002). Visual marking: Selective attention to asynchronous temporal groups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 717-750.
11. KLEIN, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 138-147.
12. KUNAR, M. A., HUMPHREYS, G. W., & SMITH, K. J. (2003). History matters: The preview benefit in search is not onset capture. Psychological Science, 14, 181-185.
13. KUNAR, M. A., HUMPHREYS, G. W., SMITH, K. J., & HULLEMAN, J. (2003). What is "marked" in visual marking? Evidence for effects of configuration in preview search. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 982-996.
14. KUNAR, M. A., HUMPHREYS, G. W., SMITH, K. J., & WATSON, D. G. (2003). When a reappearance is old news: Visual marking survives occlusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 185-198.
15. NEILL, W. T., & VALDES, L. A. (1992). Persistence of negative priming: Steady state or decay? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 18, 565-576.
16. OLIVERS, C. N. L., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (2002). Visual marking under attentional blink conditions: More evidence for top-down limited capacity inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 22-42.
17. OLIVERS, C. N. L., HUMPHREYS, G. W., HEINKE, D., & COOPER, A. C. G. (2002). Prioritization in visual search: Visual marking is not dependent on a mnemonic search. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 540-560.
18. 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.
19. PELLI, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision, 10, 437-442.
20. PRATT, J., & ABRAMS, R. A. (1995). Inhibition of return to successively cued spatial locations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 21, 1343-1353.
21. THEEUWES, J., KRAMER, A. F., & ATCHLEY, P. (1998). Visual marking of old objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 130-134.
22. TIPPER, S. P., DRIVER, J., & WEAVER, B. (1991). Object-centred inhibition of return of visual attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43A, 289-298.
23. TIPPER, S. P., WEAVER, B., CAMERON, S., BREHAUT, J., & BASTEDO, J. (1991). Inhibitory mechanisms of attention in identification and localization tasks: Time course and disruption. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 17, 681-692.
24. 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.
25. WATSON, D. G., & HUMPHREYS, G. W. (2000). Visual marking: Evidence for inhibition using a probe-dot detection paradigm. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 471-481.
26. YANTIS, S., & GIBSON, B. (1994). Object continuity in apparent motion and attention. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48, 182-204.