Prioritization in visual search: Visual marking is not dependent on a mnemonic search

Olivers, Christian N. L.; Humphreys, Glyn W.; Heinke, Dietmar; Cooper, Adam

doi:10.3758/bf03194725

Cited by 33 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Similar results for both response times (RTs) and accuracy data have been reported by and Humphreys, Jung-Stalmann, and Olivers (2004). Finally, Olivers, Humphreys, Heinke, and Cooper (2002) found that new onsets were less strongly (or not at all) prioritized when the old items had just previously been relevant to the observer, either because a target was possibly hidden among the old items, or because these items were required for another task such as estimating their number. Together, these results support the idea that new onset prioritization is subject to intentional, and attentional, control.…”

Section: Selection Of New Onsets Is Subject To Top-down Controlsupporting

confidence: 71%

The preview search task: Evidence for visual marking

2006

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A series of experiments are reviewed providing evidence for the idea that when new visual objects are prioritized, old objects are inhibited by a top-down controlled suppression mechanism *a process referred to as visual marking. Evidence for the top-down aspect of visual marking is presented, by showing that new object prioritization, as measured in the preview paradigm, depends on task settings and available attentional resources. Evidence for the inhibitory aspect is presented, by showing that selection of new items is impaired when these items share features with the old items. Such negative carryover effects occur within as well as between trials. Alternative accounts and the evidence for them is discussed. It is concluded that the various accounts are not mutually exclusive and that the data is best explained by a combination of mechanisms.There has been much debate on how new object onsets are prioritized in visual search. That they can be prioritized is now beyond reasonable doubt, as numerous researchers have found either advantages in search when the target is defined (or cued) by a new onset, or disadvantages when one of the distractors is defined (or cued) by a new onset

show abstract

Section: Selection Of New Onsets Is Subject To Top-down Controlsupporting

confidence: 71%

The preview search task: Evidence for visual marking

2006

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Olivers, Humphreys, Heinke, and Cooper (2002) rejected the idea that marking was contingenton serial IOR of each item in the preview. They had participants search each item in a preview and, in fact, showed that these items were difficult to exclude from search when the new items appeared.…”

Section: The Relations Of Vm To Other Mechanisms Of Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Although it has been argued that VM is distinct from other visual search mechanisms (see Watson &Humphreys, 1997, andOlivers, Humphreys, Heinke, &Cooper, 2002, for details), it may, in some ways, be similar to inhibition of return (IOR) in terms of "what" has become inhibited. Olivers, Humphreys, Heinke, and Cooper (2002) rejected the idea that marking was contingenton serial IOR of each item in the preview.…”

Section: The Relations Of Vm To Other Mechanisms Of Selectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is “marked” in visual marking? evidence for effects of configuration in preview search

Kunar

Humphreys

Smith

et al. 2003

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual search for a conjunction target is facilitatedwhen distractor sets are segmented over time: the preview benefit. Watson and Humphreys (1997) suggestedthat this benefit involved inhibition of old items (visual marking, VM). We investigated whether the preview benefit is sensitive to the configuration of the old distractors. Old distractors changed their location prior to the occurrence of the new items, while also either changing or maintaining their configuration. Configuration changes disrupted search. The results are consistent with object-based VM, which is sensitive to the configuration of old stimuli.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, there is a question of whether visual marking and IOR are independent or related processes. Olivers, Humphreys, Heinke, and Cooper (2002) attempted to examine this. They used a condition in which a target letter could appear among other, random letters, either in a preview or in a second search set.…”

Section: Visual Marking and Other Inhibitory Processes In Searchmentioning

confidence: 99%

An analysis of the time course of attention in preview search

Humphreys

Stalmann

Olivers

2004

Perception & Psychophysics

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We used a probe dot procedure to examine the time course of attention in preview search (Watson & Humphreys, 1997). Participants searched for an outline red vertical bar among other new red horizontal bars and old green vertical bars, superimposed on a blue background grid. Following the reaction time response for search, the participants had to decide whether a probe dot had briefly been presented. Previews appeared for 1,000 msec and were immediately followed by search displays. In Experiment 1, we demonstrated a standard preview benefit relative to a conjunction search baseline. In Experiment 2, search was combined with the probe task. Probes were more difficult to detect when they were presented 1,200 msec, relative to 800 msec, after the preview, but at both intervals detection of probes at the locations of old distractors was harder than detection on new distractors or at neutral locations. Experiment 3A demonstrated that there was no difference in the detection of probes at old, neutral, and new locations when probe detection was the primary task and there was also no difference when all of the shapes appeared simultaneously in conjunction search (Experiment 3B). In a final experiment (Experiment 4), we demonstrated that detection on old items was facilitated (relative to neutral locations and probes at the locations of new distractors) when the probes appeared 200 msec after previews, whereas there was worse detection on old items when the probes followed 800 msec after previews. We discuss the results in terms of visual marking and attention capture processes in visual search.

show abstract

Prioritization in visual search: Visual marking is not dependent on a mnemonic search

Cited by 33 publications

References 37 publications

The preview search task: Evidence for visual marking

The preview search task: Evidence for visual marking

What is “marked” in visual marking? evidence for effects of configuration in preview search

An analysis of the time course of attention in preview search

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About