Effects of search mode and intertrial priming on singleton search

Abstract

Attention refers to the mechanisms involved in the selection of those portions of the available sensory information that will receive processing priority. Two sources of control over attentional selection have been distinguished. Attention may be captured by a salient visual event (stimulusdriven, or bottom-up, control of attention), or attention may be directed to objects that possess task-relevant properties (goal-directed, or top-down, control of attention). There has been considerable debate over how these factors interact to determine processing priority (for recent reviews, see Rauschenberger, 2003;Ruz & Lupiáñez, 2002). Theeuwes (e.g., 1992) proposed that in parallel search, attention is automatically directed to the most salient object. He showed that when observers are engaged in parallel search for a particular singleton (e.g., a unique circle among diamonds), an irrelevant singleton that is more salient than the target singleton (e.g., a red element among green ones) interferes with search, even though the observers know that they have to ignore the irrelevant singleton. On the basis of such findings, Theeuwes (1992) concluded that parallel search 1 is driven exclusively by bottom-up factors, because knowledge of the target feature failed to override bottom-up interference from the most salient item in the display.Bacon and Egeth (1994) questioned this conclusion. Using a distinction initially suggested by Pashler (1988), they proposed that in Theeuwes's (1992) experiments, two search strategies were available: (1) the singleton detection mode, in which attention is directed to the location with the largest local feature contrast, and (2) the feature search mode, which entails directing attention to items possessing a specific visual feature. Indeed, in Theeuwes's (1992) experiments, the target was defined as being a singleton and as possessing the target attribute. If subjects used the singleton detection mode, both relevant and irrelevant singletons could capture attention, depending on which exhibited the greatest local feature contrast. Bacon and Egeth first conducted a replication of Theeuwes's (1992) study. They presented subjects with displays consisting of colored circles or diamonds arranged on the circumference of an imaginary circle. Line segments varying in orientation appeared inside each item. The subjects were required to determine the orientation of the line segment within a target item. The target item was defined as the unique green diamond among green circles. As was expected, time to find the target shape singleton increased when an irrelevant color singleton (a red circle) was also present. Bacon and Egeth then introduced two manipulations designed to render the singleton detection mode inappropriate for performing the task. They presented either There is no consensus as to what information guides search for a singleton target. Does the most salient display element capture attention, regardless of the observer's attentional set? Do observers adopt a default salience-based search ...

Experience-dependent attentional tuning of distractor rejection

“…But, like the filtering hypothesis, it is not clear why disengagement would become faster with experience, unless one proposes that experience with the distractor itself affects attentional control and capture, which is precisely our view. Finally, there have been many demonstrations of priming in attentional capture (Lamy, Carmel, Egeth, & Leber, 2006;Olivers & Humphreys, 2003;Pinto, Olivers, & Theeuwes, 2005). We view our results as being largely consistent with this literature.…”

The functional role of alternation advantage in the sequence effect of symbolic cueing with nonpredictive arrow cues

“…For instance, Maljkovic and Nakayama (1994) found that in searching for a color singleton target, when target and nontarget colors are switched unpredictably from trial to trial, response is faster in a trial on which the target color is the same as in the preceding trial than in a trial on which the target color is different, a phenomenon that they called priming of pop-out (PoP). Besides color, this sequence effect on visual search performance has also been observed in investigations of other properties, such as orientation (Hillstrom, 2000), shape (Lamy, Carmel, Egeth, & Leber, 2006), location (Maljkovic & Nakayama, 1996), and even emotional expression (Lamy, Amunts, & Bar-Haim, 2008). PoP is generally believed to be afforded by implicit visual memory mechanisms and without voluntary intervention (Kristjánsson, 2006).…”

Intertrial priming due to distractor repetition is eliminated in homogeneous contexts

“…For example, RTs for targets decrease when a target feature is identical to a preceding trial. This intertrial priming effect was originally found for pop-out targets that are defined by a unique feature that clearly separates them from all visual background and termed Bpriming of pop-out^ (Becker, Ansorge, & Horstmann, 2009;Eimer, Kiss, & Cheung, 2010;Found & Müller, 1996;Kristjánsson, Vuilleumier, Schwartz, MacAluso, & Driver, 2007;Lamy, Antebi, Aviani, & Carmel, 2008;Lamy, Carmel, Egeth, & Leber, 2006;Maljkovic & Nakayama, 1994). Intertrial priming has been found for various stimulus dimensions such as color, spatial frequency, orientation, and shape (Kristjánsson & Campana, 2010).…”