Multiple-target search increases workload but enhances incidental learning: A computational modelling approach to a memory paradox

Visual Cognition

Volumn 19, Issue 10, 2011, Pages 1315-1318

  Hout, Michael C ^a   Goldinger, Stephen D ^a  

^a ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; HUMAN; HUMAN EXPERIMENT; INCIDENTAL LEARNING; LEARNING; MATHEMATICAL MODEL; MENTAL PERFORMANCE; MENTAL TEST; PRIORITY JOURNAL; VISION; VISUAL MEMORY; VISUAL SEARCH; VISUAL STIMULATION; WORKING MEMORY;

EID: 84855662810     PISSN: 13506285     EISSN: 14640716     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (6)

1. Hintzman, D. L. (1988). Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 95, 528-551.
2. Hout, M. C., & Goldinger, S. D. (2010). Learning in repeated visual search. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics, 72, 1267-1282.
3. Hout, M. C., & Goldinger, S. D. (2011). Incidental learning speeds visual search by lowering response thresholds, not by improving efficiency: Evidence from eye movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/a0023894.
4. Menneer, T., Cave, K. R., & Donnelly, N. (2008). The cost of search for multiple targets: Effects of practice and target similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 125-139.
5. Williams, C. C. (2009). Not all visual memories are created equal. Visual Cognition, 18, 201-228.
6. Wolfe, J. M. (2010). Visual search. Current Biology, 20, 346-349.