Size matters: Large objects capture attention in visual search

PLoS ONE

Volumn 5, Issue 12, 2010, Pages

  Proulx, Michael J ^a  

^a QUEEN MARY UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ATTENTION; CONTROLLED STUDY; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; NORMAL HUMAN; OBJECT SIZE; ORIENTING RESPONSE; PHYSICAL PARAMETERS; REVIEW; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUAL DISCRIMINATION; VISUAL DISPLAY UNIT; VISUAL INFORMATION; VISUAL STIMULATION; ARTICLE; EYE MOVEMENT; PERCEPTIVE DISCRIMINATION; REACTION TIME; REPRODUCIBILITY; TIME; VISION;

ATTENTION; DISCRIMINATION (PSYCHOLOGY); EYE MOVEMENTS; HUMANS; REACTION TIME; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; TIME FACTORS; VISION, OCULAR; VISUAL PERCEPTION;

EID: 78650847312     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0015293     Document Type: Review

References (20)

1. Egeth HE, Yantis S (1997) Visual attention: control, representation, and time course. Annu Rev Psychol 48: 269-297.
2. Rauschenberger R (2003) Attentional capture by auto- and allo-cues. Psychon Bull Rev 10: 814-842.
3. Burnham BR (2007) Displaywide visual features associated with a search display's appearance can mediate attentional capture. Psychon Bull Rev 14: 392-422.
4. Gibson BS, Kelsey EM (1998) Stimulus-driven attentional capture is contingent on attentional set for displaywide visual features. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 24: 699-706.
5. Yantis S, Jonides J (1984) Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: evidence from visual search. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 10: 601-621.
6. Zehetleitner M, Proulx MJ, Muller HJ (2009) Additional-singleton interference in efficient visual search: a common salience route for detection and compound tasks. Atten Percept Psychophys 71: 1760-1770.
7. Theeuwes J (1991) Cross-dimensional perceptual selectivity. Percept Psychophys 50: 184-193.
8. Chan LKH, Hayward WG (2009) Feature integration theory revisited: dissociating feature detection and attentional guidance in visual search. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 35: 119-132.
9. Wolfe JM (1994) Guided Search 2.0 - a Revised Model of Visual-Search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1: 202-238.
10. Bacon WF, Egeth HE (1994) Overriding stimulus-driven attentional capture. Percept Psychophys 55: 485-496.
11. Hubner R, Malinowski P (2001) How to produce an absent-advantage in visual search. Percept Psychophys 63: 258-271.
12. Duncan J, Humphreys GW (1989) Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychol Rev 96: 433-458.
13. Lamy D, Tsal Y (1999) A salient distractor does not disrupt conjunction search. Psychon Bull Rev 6: 93-98.
14. Proulx MJ (2007) Bottom-up guidance in visual search for conjunctions. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 33: 48-56.
15. Proulx MJ, Egeth HE (2008) Biased competition and visual search: the role of luminance and size contrast. Psychol Res 72: 106-113.
16. Yantis S, Egeth HE (1999) On the distinction between visual salience and stimulus-driven attentional capture. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 25: 661-676.
17. Kumada T (1999) Limitations in attending to a feature value for overriding stimulus-driven interference. Percept Psychophys 61: 61-79.
18. Leber AB, Egeth HE (2006) It's under control: top-down search strategies can override attentional capture. Psychon Bull Rev 13: 132-138.
19. Proulx MJ (2007) Turning on the spotlight: do attention and luminance contrast affect neuronal responses in the same way? J Neurosci 27: 13043-13044.
20. Loftus GR, Masson MEJ (1994) Using Confidence-Intervals in within-Subject Designs. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1: 476-490.