Explicit memory for rejected distractors during visual search

Beck, Melissa R.; Peterson, Matthew S.; Boot, Walter R.; Vomela, Miroslava; Kramer, Arthur F.

doi:10.1080/13506280600574487

Cited by 33 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, at least in a long-term visual memory task, the timing of the target presentation does not dramatically influence the memory obtained. This result contrasts with previously reported recency effects in visual memory in both visual search (Beck et al, 2006) and scene viewing (Hollingworth, 2004;Tatler et al, 2005). However, as was described in the discussion of the first experiment, it is not surprising that testing memory after the presentation of hundreds of objects eliminates the recency advantage observed in those studies.…”

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 81%

“…This type of memory test eliminates the ability of the participant to rely on the semantic knowledge that a black cat had been presented to successfully perform the selection; the participant must rely on his or her memory for the visual details of the objects. Interestingly, the longterm memory performance for the target objects in Williams et al was TARGET AND DISTRACTOR VISUAL MEMORY 203 similar to the immediate memory test performance of participants in previous studies of visual short-term memory in visual search and scene memorization (e.g., Beck, Peterson, Boot, Vomela, & Kramer, 2006;Hollingworth, 2004Hollingworth, , 2005, indicating that although the memory test was considerably delayed in Williams et al, visual memory for these objects was robust. However, memory for distractor objects in Williams et al was Figure 1.…”

Section: Williamssupporting

confidence: 56%

“…Previous studies have demonstrated recency effects in visual memory within a single trial (e.g., Beck et al, 2006;Hollingworth, 2005;Irwin & Zelinsky, 2002;Tatler et al 2005) with memory being better for more recently fixated objects than objects that were fixated earlier in a trial. However, this concern is decreased for the current study because of two methodological details: (1) The memory test took place after all of the search trials had been completed meaning that, on average, 16 trials intervened between the search and the memory test for a specific object; and (2) half of the displays in each condition in the final presentation block were target absent trials, meaning that the most recent object viewed for that display could not be the target object.…”

Section: Williamsmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Not all visual memories are created equal

Williams

2010

Visual Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Resultscontrasting

confidence: 81%

Section: Williamssupporting

confidence: 56%

Section: Williamsmentioning

confidence: 97%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Not all visual memories are created equal

Williams

2010

Visual Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The percentage of correct object identifications in a test phase depended on the number of intervening fixations and resulted in a recency effect that was very similar to ours. A similar approach was used by Beck, Peterson, Boot, Vomela, and Kramer (2006) to study explicit object memory in search. On 33% of the trials, they ended a trial prematurely and asked participants to identify which of two items had been presented at a Number of Fixations…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Finding a new target in an old display: Evidence for a memory recency effect in visual search

Körner

Gilchrist

2007

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

846The visual environment contains multiple objects most of which are irrelevant to the current behavioral goal. The task for any organism is to locate and identify the item that is relevant (the target) from among the other objects (the distractors). In a complex environment this task involves visual search, a topic that has attracted a great deal of research effort over the last 30 years. This research focuses on situations in which, for each search participants are presented with a whole new display. Of course, in real life visual behavior occurs in a world that is far more continuous. We search for a number of things, one after the other, within the same environment. Only recently has this kind of repeated search attracted some attention (Wolfe, Klempen, & Dahlen, 2000;Wolfe, Oliva, Butcher, & Arsenio, 2002). Wolfe and colleagues were interested in the longterm benefits of repeated exposure on search performance. Their results indicate that participants do not profit from prior search experience in the longer term. This, however, does not exclude the possibility of a short-lived influence of visual short-term memory on search behavior which we explore in the present article.Repeated search is intrinsically interesting because it maps readily onto everyday behavior. However, it is also of interest because of the recent debate about the extent to which visual search is supported by memory (see Shore & Klein, 2000). Since the initial report by Horowitz and Wolfe (1998) Within the classical memory literature, memory is divided into short-term and long-term (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968). Short-term memory is said to have a limited capacity and to decay over time. The classical signature of short-term memory is the recency effect: Items that have been processed more recently have a higher probability of being recalled (e.g., McCrary & Hunter, 1953). The recency effect reflects both the limited capacity and the rapid decay of short-term memory. If such memory processes do indeed support search then we would expect to observe these effects in situations in which search occurs repeatedly in the same display for different targets. In such repeated search, any memory resources available will confer a real advantage for subsequent searches.With this motivation, in the present experiment we asked participants to carry out two consecutive searches on the same display and looked for evidence of short-term Visual search often involves searching the same environment, consecutively, for a number of different targets. Here we investigate the extent to which search benefits from such previous exposure. In the experiment participants searched the same display consecutively for two different targets. Manual responses were faster in the second search than the first search regardless of whether a target was present or absent in the second search. Eye movement recordings demonstrated that the time necessary to find a target letter in the second search depended on when that letter was last fixated in the previous search. This fixation...

show abstract

“…In this case, refixations were therefore used to acquire a specific piece of information, the spatial information needed to correctly position a block in the model reconstruction. These fundamentally different functions of refixations complicate even the simplest of generalizations across tasks; whereas accuracy in a scene memory task improves with the number of refixations during study (Holm & Mäntyla, 2007), refixations in a search task are generally associated with poor spatial memory and inefficient processing (Beck, Peterson, Boot, Vomela, & Kramer, 2006;Dickinson & Zelinsky, 2005;Gilchrist & Harvey, 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Do object refixations during scene viewing indicate rehearsal in visual working memory?

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Do refixations serve a rehearsal function in visual working memory (VWM)? We analyzed refixations from observers freely viewing multiobject scenes. An eyetracker was used to limit the viewing of a scene to a specified number of objects fixated after the target (intervening objects), followed by a four-alternative forced choice recognition test. Results showed that the probability of target refixation increased with the number of fixated intervening objects, and these refixations produced a 16% accuracy benefit over the first five intervening-object conditions. Additionally, refixations most frequently occurred after fixations on only one to two other objects, regardless of the intervening-object condition. These behaviors could not be explained by random or minimally constrained computational models; a VWM component was required to completely describe these data. We explain these findings in terms of a monitor-refixate rehearsal system: The activations of object representations in VWM are monitored, with refixations occurring when these activations decrease suddenly.Keywords Eye movements . Scene perception . Active vision . Memory rehearsal People freely viewing a scene often return their gaze to previously fixated objects, a behavior known as an oculomotor refixation. Refixations are a ubiquitous property of normal gaze behavior and have been noted in tasks as diverse as reading

show abstract

Explicit memory for rejected distractors during visual search

Cited by 33 publications

References 45 publications

Not all visual memories are created equal

Not all visual memories are created equal

Finding a new target in an old display: Evidence for a memory recency effect in visual search

Do object refixations during scene viewing indicate rehearsal in visual working memory?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About