1988
DOI: 10.3758/bf03207480
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Binocularity and visual search

Abstract: This paper describes a series of visual search experiments for targets defined by their binocular c.haracteristics. In searches for targets defined by binocular rivalry among fused distractors, or VIce versa, the rivalrous items do not "pop out" (reaction time [RT] increases with number of distractors). Binocular luster, a variety of rivalry, is an exception. Luster, an important property of visible surfaces, behaves like a basic feature or "texton" (RT independent of the number of nonlustrous distractors). S… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

11
83
2
1

Year Published

1990
1990
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 117 publications
(97 citation statements)
references
References 35 publications
11
83
2
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Two considerations seem to undermine the feasibility of this putative mechanism: First, it has been reasonably argued and shown that one cannot voluntary direct attention to an invisible stimulus (Schall, Nawrot, Blake, & Yu, 1993), and accordingly, binocular rivalry studies have indicated that voluntary attention seems incapable of operating on the neural representation of the suppressed image (Chong et al, 2005). Second, there is evidence that in a dichoptic viewing condition-typical of binocular rivalry and CFS-the observer cannot tell which eye is being stimulated by a given stimulus (Ono & Barbeito, 1985;Wolfe & Franzel, 1988). A second possibility is that in our CFS paradigm, initially, on some trials, the suppressed target image broke through the mask because of the stochastic nature of rivalry.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Two considerations seem to undermine the feasibility of this putative mechanism: First, it has been reasonably argued and shown that one cannot voluntary direct attention to an invisible stimulus (Schall, Nawrot, Blake, & Yu, 1993), and accordingly, binocular rivalry studies have indicated that voluntary attention seems incapable of operating on the neural representation of the suppressed image (Chong et al, 2005). Second, there is evidence that in a dichoptic viewing condition-typical of binocular rivalry and CFS-the observer cannot tell which eye is being stimulated by a given stimulus (Ono & Barbeito, 1985;Wolfe & Franzel, 1988). A second possibility is that in our CFS paradigm, initially, on some trials, the suppressed target image broke through the mask because of the stochastic nature of rivalry.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Content may change prior to final publication. orientation [16], [17], [18], [19] length [20], [21] closure [16] size [22], [23] curvature [21] density [23] number [20], [24], [25] hue [23], [26], [27], [28], [29] luminance [21], [30], [31] intersections [16] terminators [16] 3D depth [32], [33] icker [34], [35], [36], [37], [38] direction of motion [33], [38], [39] velocity of motion [33], [38], [39], [40], [41] lighting direction [42], [43] Fig. 2.…”
Section: Theories Of Preattentive Visionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, visual search for a "blue" element would generate a top-down request that is drawn to blue locations. Wolfe argued that viewers must specify requests in terms of the categories provided by each feature map [18], [31]. Thus, a viewer could search for "steep" or "shallow" elements, but not for elements rotated by a speci c angle.…”
Section: Guided Search Theorymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Since the search terminates upon detection of a target, only half of the items need to be scanned on the average for positive (target-present) trials; thus, the ratio of the slopes for negative versus positive trials should approximate 2: 1. It has indeed been found in numerous studies that the search for the presence of a simple feature is independent of set size, whereas the search for a conjunction of features is not (see, e.g., Bergen & lulesz, 1983;Egeth, Virzi, & Garbart, 1984;Nakayama & Silverman, 1986;Treisman & Gelade, 1980;Wolfe & Franzel, 1988).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%