In a typical visual search experiment, observers look through a set of items for a designated target that may or may not be present. Reaction time (RT) is measured as a function of the number of items in the display (set size), and inferences about the underlying search processes are based on the slopes of the resulting RT x Set Size functions. Most search experiments involve 5 to 15 subjects performing a few hundred trials each. In this retrospective study, I examine results from 2,500 experimental sessions of a few hundred trials each (approximately 1 million total trials). These data represent a wide variety of search tasks. The resulting picture of human search behavior requires changes in our theories of visual search.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BraunJ.SagiD. (1990). Vision outside the focus of attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 48, 45–58.
2.
ChunM.M.WolfeJ.M. (1996). Just say no: How are visual searches terminated when there is no target present?Cognitive Psychology, 30, 39–78.
3.
CohenA. (1993). Asymmetries in visual search for conjunctive targets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 775–797.
4.
CohenA.IvryR.B. (1991). Density effects in conjunction search: Evidence for coarse location mechanism of feature integration. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 891–901.
5.
DehaeneS. (1989). Discriminability and dimensionality effects in visual search for featural conjunctions: A functional pop-out. Perception & Psychophysics, 46, 72–80.
EcksteinM.P.ThomasJ.P.PalmerJ.ShimozakiS.S. (1996). Further predictions of signal detection theory on visual search accuracy: Conjunctions, disjunctions, and triple conjunctions. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 37(3), S15.
8.
EgethH.DagenbachD. (1991). Parallel versus serial processing in visual search: Further evidence from subadditive effects of visual quality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 551–560.
9.
EgethH.E.VirziR.A.GarbartH. (1984). Searching for conjunctively defined targets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 32–39.
10.
HübnerR. (1993). On possible models of attention in signal detection. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 37, 266–281.
11.
KwakH.DagenbachD.EgethH. (1991). Further evidence for a time-independent shift of the focus of attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 473–480.
12.
LoganG. (1995). Linguistic and conceptual control of visual spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 28, 103–174.
13.
McLeodP.DriverJ.CrispJ. (1988). Visual search for conjunctions of movement and form is parallel. Nature, 332, 154–155.
14.
McLeodP.DriverJ.DienesZ.CrispJ. (1991). Filtering by movement in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17, 55–64.
15.
MooreC.M.EgethH.BerglanL.R.LuckS.J. (1996). Are attentional dwell times inconsistent with serial visual search?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 360–365.
16.
NakayamaK. (1990). The iconic bottleneck and the tenuous link between early visual processing and perception. In BlakemoreC., (Ed.), Vision: Coding and efficiency (pp. 411–422). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
17.
NakayamaK.SilvermanG.H. (1986). Serial and parallel processing of visual feature conjunctions. Nature, 320, 264–265.
18.
PalmerJ. (1994). Set-size effects in visual search: The effect of attention is independent of the stimulus for simple tasks. Vision Research, 34, 1703–1721.
19.
PalmerJ.McLeanJ. (1995, August). Imperfect, unlimited-capacity, parallel search yields large set-size effects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Mathematical Psychology, Irvine, CA.
20.
SagiD. (1988). The combination of spatial frequency and orientation is effortlessly perceived. Perception & Psychophysics, 43, 601–603.
21.
SwenssonR.G.JudyP.F. (1981). Detection of noisy visual targets: Models for the effects of spatial uncertainty and signal-to-noise ratio. Perception & Psychophysics, 29, 521–534.
22.
TheeuwesJ.KooiJ.L. (1994). Parallel search for a conjunction of shape and contrast polarity. Vision Research, 34, 3013–3016.
23.
TownsendJ.T. (1971). A note on the identification of parallel and serial processes. Perception & Psychophysics, 10, 161–163.
24.
TownsendJ.T. (1990). Serial and parallel processing: Sometimes they look like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but they can (and should) be distinguished. Psychological Science, 1, 46–54.
25.
TreismanA. (1993). The perception of features and objects. In BaddeleyA.WeiskrantzL., (Eds.), Attention: Selection, awareness, and control (pp. 5–35). Oxford, England: Clarendon Press.
26.
TreismanA.GeladeG. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.
27.
TreismanA.SatoS. (1990). Conjunction search revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 459–478.
von der HeydtR.DurstelerM.R. (1993). Visual search: Monkeys detect conjunctions as fast as features. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 34, 1288.
30.
WolfeJ.M. (1992). “Effortless” texture segmentation and “parallel” visual search are not the same thing. Vision Research, 32, 757–763.
31.
WolfeJ.M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 202–238.
32.
WolfeJ.M. (in press). Visual search. In PashlerH., (Ed.), Attention. London: University College London Press.
WolfeJ.M.CaveK.R.FranzelS.L. (1989). Guided Search: An alternative to the Feature Integration model for visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 419–433.
35.
WolfeJ.M.Friedman-HillS.R.StewartM.I.O'ConnellK.M. (1992). The role of categorization in visual search for orientation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 34–49.
36.
WolfeJ.M.GancarzG. (1996). Guided Search 3.0: A model of visual search catches up with Jay Enoch 40 years later. In LakshminarayananV., (Ed.), Basic and clinical applications of vision science (pp. 189–192). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.
37.
ZoharyE.HochsteinS. (1989). How serial is serial processing in vision?Perception, 18, 191–200.
