Visual Search: How Do We Find What We Are Looking For?

Wolfe, Jeremy M.

doi:10.1146/annurev-vision-091718-015048

Cited by 151 publications

(121 citation statements)

References 187 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

114

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Everyday behavior as we know it relies on the continuous selection of relevant information from both the external environment and our internal representations within memory ( 1 , 2 ). While many factors contribute to the allocation of attention ( 3 – 5 ), a prominent distinction in the literature on external attention is that between voluntary (goal-directed) and involuntary (stimulus-driven) sources of selection ( 6 – 10 ). We may voluntarily attend to a sensory stimulus because it is directly relevant to our goals, but our attention may also be captured involuntarily by stimuli in the external world.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Goal-directed and stimulus-driven selection of internal representations

Ede

Board

Nobre

2020

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Adaptive behavior relies on the selection of relevant sensory information from both the external environment and internal memory representations. In understanding external selection, a classic distinction is made between voluntary (goal-directed) and involuntary (stimulus-driven) guidance of attention. We have developed a task—the anti-retrocue task—to separate and examine voluntary and involuntary guidance of attention to internal representations in visual working memory. We show that both voluntary and involuntary factors influence memory performance but do so in distinct ways. Moreover, by tracking gaze biases linked to attentional focusing in memory, we provide direct evidence for an involuntary “retro-capture” effect whereby external stimuli involuntarily trigger the selection of feature-matching internal representations. We show that stimulus-driven and goal-directed influences compete for selection in memory, and that the balance of this competition—as reflected in oculomotor signatures of internal attention—predicts the quality of ensuing memory-guided behavior. Thus, goal-directed and stimulus-driven factors together determine the fate not only of perception, but also of internal representations in working memory.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Goal-directed and stimulus-driven selection of internal representations

Ede

Board

Nobre

2020

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

143

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Furthermore, in visual search tasks, reaction time (RT) is a roughly linear function of set size. Note that RTs will increase at a rate of approximately 20–30 ms/item for target-present trials and 40–60 ms/item for target-absent trials (Wolfe 1998 , 2020 ). RTs are dramatically slower in the target-absent trials and this makes them not directly comparable to RTs in the target-present trials.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preventing action slows down performance in perceptual judgment

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Action and vision are known to be tightly coupled with each other. In a previous study, we found that repeatedly grasping an object without any visual feedback might result in a perceptual aftereffect when the object was visually presented in the context of a perceptual judgement task. In this study, we explored whether and how such an effect could be modulated by presenting the object behind a transparent barrier. Our conjecture was that if perceptual judgment relies, in part at least, on the same processes and representations as those involved in action, then one should expect to find a slowdown in judgment performance when the target object looks to be out of reach. And this was what we actually found. This indicates that not only acting upon an object but also being prevented from acting upon it can affect how the object is perceptually judged.

show abstract

“…The recent surge of research showing effects of memory on visual search has promoted the view that selection history strongly influences attentional priority (e.g., Awh et al, 2012;Belopolsky, 2015;Theeuwes, 2013; see also Anderson, 2016;Chelazzi, Perlato, Santandrea, & Della Libera, 2013;Goldstein & Beck, 2018;Jiang, 2018;Theeuwes, 2018;Todd & Manaligod, 2018;Wolfe, 2019;2020). This is a far-reaching claim because it challenges a well-entrenched dichotomy, according to which two factors determine attention priority: stimulus salience (bottom-up or stimulus-driven guidance) and task goals (top-down or goaldirected guidance).…”

Section: A Challenge To the Bottom-up Vs Top-down Dichotomy In Attenmentioning

confidence: 99%

Top-down, bottom-up and selection-history-based control of attention: A failed trichotomy? The case of Priming of pop-out (PoP)

Ramgir¹,

Lamy²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When we search for an object, our performance is strongly influenced by our past experience. In the lab, this influence has been demonstrated by investigating a variety of phenomena, including inter-trial priming, statistical learning and reward history, and collectively referred to as selection history. The resulting findings have led researchers to claim that selection history guides attention, thereby challenging the prevailing dichotomy, according to which attentional priority is determined solely by top-down goals and bottom-up salience. The objective of the present review is to reexamine this claim by evaluating the evidence that specifically pertains to the role of selection history in attentional guidance, rather than in later processes occurring after the target is found. We focus on one selection history phenomenon, priming of pop-out (PoP). After demarcating the conditions under which PoP effects can be dissociated from top-down effects, we review the relevant findings, while distinguishing between the main experimental rationales adopted to address this question. We conclude that despite some inconsistencies that should be resolved by further research, most of the extant empirical evidence does not support the idea that PoP affects attentional priority. We call for similar reevaluations of other selection history phenomena and caution against burying the bottom-up vs. top-down dichotomy too hastily.

show abstract

Visual Search: How Do We Find What We Are Looking For?

Cited by 151 publications

References 187 publications

Goal-directed and stimulus-driven selection of internal representations

Goal-directed and stimulus-driven selection of internal representations

Preventing action slows down performance in perceptual judgment

Top-down, bottom-up and selection-history-based control of attention: A failed trichotomy? The case of Priming of pop-out (PoP)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About