In a reanalysis of data from Cousineau and Shiffrin (2004) and two new visual search experiments, we used a likelihood ratio test to examine the full distributions of reaction time (RT) for evidence that the display size effect is a mixture-type effect that occurs on only a proportion of trials, leaving RT in the remaining trials unaffected, as is predicted by serial self-terminating search models. Experiment 1 was a reanalysis of Cousineau and Shiffrin's data, for which a mixture effect had previously been established by a bimodal distribution of RTs, and the results confirmed that the likelihood ratio test could also detect this mixture. Experiment 2 applied the likelihood ratio test within a more standard visual search task with a relatively easy target/distractor discrimination, and Experiment 3 applied it within a target identification search task within the same types of stimuli. Neither of these experiments provided any evidence for the mixture-type display size effect predicted by serial self-terminating search models. Overall, these results suggest that serial self-terminating search models may generally be applicable only with relatively difficult target/distractor discriminations, and then only for some participants. In addition, they further illustrate the utility of analysing full RT distributions in addition to mean RT.
AndrewsS.HeathcoteA. (2001). Distinguishing common task-specific processes in word identification. A matter of some moment.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition27, 514–544.
2.
AtkinsonR. C.HolmgrenJ.JuolaJ. F. (1969). Processing time as influenced by the number of elements in a visual display.Perception & Psychophysics6, 321–326.
3.
BloughD. S. (2000). Effects of priming, discriminability, and reinforcement on reaction-time components in pigeon visual search.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes26, 50–63.
4.
ChunM. M.WolfeJ. M. (1996). Just say no: How are visual searches terminated when there is no target present?.Cognitive Psychology30, 39–78.
5.
ComptonB. J.LoganG. D. (1991). The transition from algorithm to retrieval in memory-based theories of automaticity.Memory & Cognition19, 151–158.
6.
CousineauD.ShiffrinR. M. (2004). Termination of a visual search with large display size effects.Spatial Vision17, 327–352.
7.
DosherB. A. (1998). The response-window regression method: Some problematic assumptions: Comment on Draine and Greenwald (1998).Journal of Experimental Psychology: General127, 311–317.
8.
DukewichK. R.KleinR. (2005). Implications of search accuracy for serial self-terminating models of search.Visual Cognition12, 1386–1403.
9.
DuncanJ.HumphreysG. W. (1992). Beyond the search surface: Visual search and attentional engagement.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance18, 578–588.
10.
EriksenB. A.EriksenC. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task.Perception & Psychophysics16, 143–149.
11.
EriksenC. W.St. JamesJ. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model.Perception & Psychophysics40, 225–240.
12.
HockleyW. E. (1984). Analysis of response time distributions in the study of cognitive processes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition10, 598–615.
13.
HohleR. H. (1965). Inferred components of reaction times as functions of foreperiod duration.Journal of Experimental Psychology69, 382–386.
14.
HohleR. H.GholsonB. (1968). Choice reaction times with equally and unequally probable alternatives.Journal of Experimental Psychology78, 95–98.
15.
HolmgrenJ. E.JuolaJ. F.AtkinsonR. C. (1974). Response latency in visual search with redundancy in the visual display.Perception & Psychophysics16, 123–128.
16.
HübnerR.MalinowskiP. (2001). How to produce an absent-advantage in visual search.Perception & Psychophysics63, 258–271.
17.
KinsbourneM.InnisN. (1972). Visual search through short digit sequences is self terminating.Acta Psychologica36, 54–59.
18.
KirsnerK.WellsJ. E.SangD. L. (1982). Physical and name match processes in same–different judgments for letters.Acta Psychologica52, 73–85.
19.
LoganG. D.ZbrodoffN. J. (1982). Constraints on strategy construction in a speeded discrimination task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance8, 502–520.
20.
LuceR. D. (1986). Response times: Their role in inferring elementary mental organizationOxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
21.
MaddoxW. T.AshbyF. G.GottlobL. R. (1998). Response time distributions in multidimensional perceptual categorization.Perception & Psychophysics60, 620–637.
22.
MeyerD. E.IrwinD. E.OsmanA. M.KouniosJ. (1988). The dynamics of cognition and action: Mental processes inferred from speed–accuracy decomposition.Psychological Review95, 183–237.
23.
MeyerD. E.OsmanA. M.YantisS. (November 1982). RT mixture distributions: Evidence for finite-state models of response preparationPaper presented at the annual meeting of the Psychonomic Society. Minneapolis, MN, USA.
24.
MillerJ. O. (1982). Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals.Cognitive Psychology14, 247–279.
25.
MillerJ. O. (1998). Effects of stimulus–response probability on choice reaction time: Evidence from the lateralized readiness potential.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance24, 1521–1534.
26.
MillerJ. O. (2006). A likelihood ratio test for mixture effects.Behavior Research Methods38, 92–106.
OsmanA. M.LouL.Müller-GethmannH.RinkenauerG.MattesS.UlrichR. (2000). Mechanisms of speed–accuracy tradeoff: Evidence from covert motor processes.Biological Psychology51, 173–199.
29.
PalmerJ.HukA. C.ShadlenM. N. (2005). The effect of stimulus strength on the speed and accuracy of a perceptual decision. Journal of Vision.5, 376–404.
30.
PashlerH. E. (1987). Detecting conjunctions of color and form: Reassessing the serial search hypothesis.Perception & Psychophysics41, 191–201.
31.
PashlerH. E. (1994). Graded capacity-sharing in dual-task interference?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance20, 330–342.
32.
PodgornyP.GarnerW. R. (1979). Reaction time as a measure of inter- and intraobject visual similarity: Letters of the alphabet.Perception & Psychophysics26, 37–52.
33.
ReddiB. A. J.AsrressK. N.CarpenterR. H. S. (2003). Accuracy, information, and response time in a saccadic decision task.Journal of Neurophysiology90, 3538–3546.
34.
SchwarzW. (2001). The ex-Wald distribution as a descriptive model of response times.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers33, 457–469.
35.
SchweickertR.GiorginiM. (1999). Response time distributions: Some simple effects of factors selectively influencing mental processes.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review6, 269–288.
SpielerD. H.BalotaD. A.FaustM. E. (2000). Levels of selective attention revealed through analyses of response time distributions.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance26, 506–526.
38.
StuartA.OrdK.ArnoldS. (1999). Kendall's advanced theory of statistics: Vol. 2A. Classical inference and the linear model. (6). London: Arnold.
39.
TownsendJ. T. (1990). Serial vs. parallel processing: Sometimes they look like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but they can (and should) be distinguished.Psychological Science1, 46–54.
40.
TownsendJ. T.RoosR. N. (1973). Search reaction time for single targets in multiletter stimuli with brief visual displays.Memory & Cognition1, 319–332.
41.
TreismanA. M.GeladeG. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention.Cognitive Psychology12, 97–136.
42.
WolfeJ. M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of visual search.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review1, 202–238.
43.
WoodmanG. F.LuckS. J. (2003). Serial deployment of attention during visual search.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance29, 121–138.
44.
YantisS.MeyerD. E.SmithJ. E. K. (1991). Analyses of multinomial mixture distributions: New tests for stochastic models of cognition and action.Psychological Bulletin110, 350–374.
45.
YellottJ. I.Jr. (1971). Correction for fast guessing and the speed–accuracy tradeoff in choice reaction time.Journal of Mathematical Psychology8, 159–199.
