Visual search asymmetries in motion and optic flow fields

Royden, Constance S.; Wolfe, Jeremy M.; Klempen, Nicole

doi:10.3758/bf03194410

Cited by 69 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This indicates that participants were not able to segregate the displays on the basis of motion and search either group at will. This is in contrast with previous research showing that search for a single static element (the "dead fly") among moving elements ("live flies"), although not as efficient as searching for the single moving element among static elements, is still quite efficient when the dynamic elements move in synchrony (4.2 msec/ item, Royden et al, 2001). The critical difference is that in Experiment 3, observers need to hold the locations of the static items in memory for 750 msec before the stimuli appeared, whereas in Royden et al, motion was present throughoutthe search process.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 54%

“…In this case, the motion did not occur while the search stimuli were present, but occurred 750 msec before the presentation of the stimuli. This is in contrast to the live fly experiments of Verghese and Pelli (1992) and Royden et al (2001), in which the task was to locate the single moving dot (the "live fly") among a set of static dots ("dead flies"), and search was unaffected by the number of distractor items in the display.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

“…Although the role of motion is not new to the visual search literature, previous investigations have concentrated on the role that motion plays either during conventional visual search tasks (McLeod, Driver, & Crisp, 1988;McLeod, Driver, Dienes, & Crisp, 1991;Royden, Wolfe, & Klempen, 2001;Verghese & Pelli, 1992; or during the gap period of otherwise conventionalonset-defined preview search tasks (Watson, 2001;Watson & Humphreys, 1998). In contrast, Experiment 2 investigated whether motion can be the target group defining feature for preview search.…”

Section: Experiments 2: Marking By Motion Transientsmentioning

confidence: 91%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Contingent visual marking by transients

Peterson

Belopolsky

Kramer

2003

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Preview search is a phenomenon in which a set of new items can be searched with seemingly no interference from items already present in the display. The preview effect has been shown to occur only when the presentation of the new items is accompanied by a luminance change (Donk & Theeuwes, 2001). In a series of experiments, we extend the type of transients that can lead to a preview benefit to offsets and motion, and confirm Donk and Theeuwes's finding that equiluminant color changes do not lead to a preview effect. Like Donk and Theeuwes, we find that preview search does not occur when only the old items undergo a transient change, suggesting that the processes responsible for preview search are triggered when the new items undergo a change detectable by the magnocellular system. In addition, we find that irrelevant transients interfere with preview search only when they match the current attentional set (e.g., luminance change or motion). Results suggest that preview search is not the automatic capture of attention by transients, but rather is contingent on top-down control settings.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 54%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 81%

Section: Experiments 2: Marking By Motion Transientsmentioning

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contingent visual marking by transients

Peterson

Belopolsky

Kramer

2003

Perception & Psychophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…moving and/or blinking stimuli) can capture attention over stationary stimuli (e.g. McLeod, Driver & Crisp, 1988, Royden, Wolfe & Klempen, 2001, however a moving and/or blinking target cannot be selectively boosted to capture attention in the presence of other moving and/or blinking stimuli (see Pinto et al, 2008, for a similar argument).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, search asymmetries can also be used to identify if some property of an item acts as a feature, with the idea that the presence of a feature can be found more efficiently than its absence (Treisman & Souther, 1985, Wolfe, 2001, Royden et al, 2001, Wolfe & Horowitz, 2004. In terms of motion, Royden, Wolfe and Klempen, (2001) found that a moving target among stationary items produced highly efficient search slopes, (around 0 ms/item, see also McLeod, Driver & Crisp, 1988), however the asymmetrical case of finding a stationary target among moving distractors did not produce efficient search (search slopes were much higher than 0 ms/item, Royden et al, 2001). This suggests that motion acts as a feature but the absence of motion (e.g.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

When are abrupt onsets found efficiently in complex visual search? Evidence from multielement asynchronous dynamic search.

Kunar

Watson

2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous work has found that search principles derived from simple visual search tasks do not necessarily apply to more complex search tasks. Using a Multi-element Asynchronous Dynamic (MAD) visual search task, where high numbers of stimuli could either be moving, stationary and/or changing in luminance, Kunar and Watson (2011) found that, unlike previous work, participants missed a high number of targets with search for moving items worse than for static and no benefit for finding targets that showed a luminance onset. Here we investigate why luminance onsets do not capture attention and whether luminance onsets can ever capture attention in MAD search. Experiment 1 investigated whether blinking stimuli, which abruptly offset for 100 ms before re-onsetting again -conditions known to produce attentional capture in simpler visual search tasks -captured attention in MAD search, while Experiments 2 -5 investigated whether giving participants advance knowledge and pre-exposure to the blinking cues produced efficient search for blinking targets. Experiments 6 -9 investigated whether unique luminance onsets, unique motion or unique stationary items captured attention. The results found that luminance onsets only captured attention in MAD search when they were unique, consistent with a top-down unique feature hypothesis.

show abstract

Visual Search

Wolfe

2018

Stevens' Handbook of Experimental Psychology and Cognitive Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In visual search tasks, observers typically look for one or more target items among distracting items. Visual search lies at an important intersection between vision and attention. It is impossible to fully process everything in the visual scene at once. Most acts of visual object recognition require that resources be directed to one (or a very few) items. Visual selective attention is used to restrict processing for this purpose. Explaining visual search behavior involves explaining how visual selective attention is deployed to get this done. This chapter reviews why we search, how search experiments have been conducted in the lab, and what the resulting data can (and cannot) tell us. Attention is guided by a limited set of stimulus attributes. The candidates for these attributes are discussed here. The chapter also considers how attention is guided by scene structure and the interaction of attentional mechanisms with long‐term and working memory.

show abstract

Visual search asymmetries in motion and optic flow fields

Cited by 69 publications

References 31 publications

Contingent visual marking by transients

Contingent visual marking by transients

When are abrupt onsets found efficiently in complex visual search? Evidence from multielement asynchronous dynamic search.

Visual Search

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About