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

Kunar, Melina A.; Humphreys, Glyn W.; Smith, Kelly; Hulleman, Johan

doi:10.3758/bf03194828

Cited by 32 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, despite reports that object and spatial working memory may be segregated in posterior regions (Gnadt & Andersen, 1988;Miller, Li, & Desimone, 1993), the superior parietal lobe specifically subserves the preview effect (Allen, Humphreys, & Matthews, 2008;Humphreys et al, 2004;Olivers, Smith, Matthews, & Humphreys, 2005), and this region has been shown to be implicated in both spatial and object working memory (Xu & Chun, 2006). Indeed, previous studies have demonstrated that changing the identities of the previewed distractors is disruptive to the preview benefit (Jiang, Chun, & Marks, 2002;Kunar, Humphreys, Smith, & Hulleman, 2003), and Emrich and colleagues (2010) have provided support for the involvement of nonspatial memory in inhibition during search. Thus, from this work alone, it is not clear that the spatial subsystem of VWM is what more heavily supports the preview benefit.…”

Section: Spatial Versus Object Working Memorymentioning

confidence: 98%

Visual working memory simultaneously guides facilitation and inhibition during visual search

Dube

Basciano

Emrich

et al. 2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

During visual search, visual working memory (VWM) supports the guidance of attention in two ways: It stores the identity of the search target, facilitating the selection of matching stimuli in the search array, and it maintains a record of the distractors processed during search so that they can be inhibited. In two experiments, we investigated whether the full contents of VWM can be used to support both of these abilities simultaneously. In Experiment 1, participants completed a preview search task in which (a) a subset of search distractors appeared before the remainder of the search items, affording participants the opportunity to inhibit them, and (b) the search target varied from trial to trial, requiring the search target template to be maintained in VWM. We observed the established signature of VWM-based inhibition-reduced ability to ignore previewed distractors when the number of distractors exceeds VWM's capacity-suggesting that VWM can serve this role while also representing the target template. In Experiment 2, we replicated Experiment 1, but added to the search displays a singleton distractor that sometimes matched the color (a task-irrelevant feature) of the search target, to evaluate capture. We again observed the signature of VWM-based preview inhibition along with attentional capture by (and, thus, facilitation of) singletons matching the target template. These findings indicate that more than one VWM representation can bias attention at a time, and that these representations can separately affect selection through either facilitation or inhibition, placing constraints on existing models of the VWM-based guidance of attention.

show abstract

Section: Spatial Versus Object Working Memorymentioning

confidence: 98%

Visual working memory simultaneously guides facilitation and inhibition during visual search

Dube

Basciano

Emrich

et al. 2016

Atten Percept Psychophys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Here, we suggest that capacity limits are reduced by encoding old items as a single group on the basis of their time, their common color (when they have a common color), and their configuration (see Kunar, Humphreys, Smith, & Hulleman, 2003, for evidence of configural effects in preview search). Grouped old items can be inhibited together, and search can be biased away from them and toward a new set.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

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

“…If the masked shape change abolishes the preview effect then search in these two conditions should differ (see also Braithwaite & Humphreys, 2007;Donk, Agter & Pratt, 2009;Donk & Theeuwes, 2001;Donk & Verberg, 2004;Emrich et al, 2008;Fenske et al, 2004;Jiang, Chun & Marks, 2002, Kunar et al, 2003a, Kunar et al, 2003d, Kunar, Shapiro & Humphreys, 2006Osugi, Kumada, Kawahara, 2009, for examples of other preview experiments which do not include a HEB).…”

Section: Change Blindnessmentioning

confidence: 99%

Visual marking and change blindness: Moving occluders and transient masks neutralize shape changes to ignored objects.

Watson¹,

Kunar²

2010

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Perfor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Visual search efficiency improves by presenting (previewing) one set of distractors before the target and remaining distractor items (D. G. Watson & G. W. Humphreys, 1997). Previous work has shown that this preview benefit is abolished if the old items change their shape when the new items are added (e.g., D. G. . Here we present 5 experiments that examined whether such object changes are still effective in recapturing attention if the changes occur while the previewed objects are occluded or masked. Overall, the findings suggest that masking transients are effective in preventing both object changes and the presentation of new objects from capturing attention in time-based visual search conditions. The findings are discussed in relation to theories of change blindness, new object capture, and the ecological properties of time-based visual selection.

show abstract

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

Cited by 32 publications

References 25 publications

Visual working memory simultaneously guides facilitation and inhibition during visual search

Visual working memory simultaneously guides facilitation and inhibition during visual search

An analysis of the time course of attention in preview search

Visual marking and change blindness: Moving occluders and transient masks neutralize shape changes to ignored objects.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About