A new model of the visual search process is developed which can improve the design of large symbol sets such as those used by nuclear power plant personnel, air traffic controllers, and battlefield troops. An experiment was conducted to determine whether the new, componential model or an already existing, discriminability model better explains visual search behavior. The results were consistent with the componential model. We show how to use the componential model to help automate selection of the optimal symbol set (i.e., the symbol set that minimizes the average time to find a target).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arani, T., Karwan, M. H., and Drury, C. G. (1984). A variable-memory model of visual search. Human Factors, 26, 631-639.
2.
Bloomfield, J. R. (1972). Visual search in complex fields: Size differences between target disc and surrounding discs. Human Factors, 14, 139-148.
3.
Cohen, A., and Ivry, R. (1989). Illusory conjunction inside and outside the focus of attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 650-663.
4.
Drury, C. G., and Clement, M. R. (1978). The effects of area, density, and number of background characters in visual search. Human Factors, 20, 597-602.
5.
Engel, F. L. (1977). Visual conspicuity, visual search, and fixation tendencies of the eye. Vision Research, 17, 95-108.
6.
Fisher, D. L. (1986. August). Programmable perceptrons: Serial and parallel visual search. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for Mathematical Psychology, Boston, MA.
7.
Fisher, D. L., Coury, B. G., Tengs, T. O., and Duffy, S. A. (1989). Minimizing the time to search visual displays: The role of highlighting. Human Factors, 31, 167-182.
8.
Geiselman, R. E., Landee, B. M., and Christen, F. G. (1982). Perceptual discriminability as a basis for selecting graphic symbols. Human Factors, 24, 329-338.
9.
Gupta, S. M., and Geyer, L. H. (1981). Visual search is systematic. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 25th Annual Meeting (pp. 639-643). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
10.
Hillier, F. S., and Lieberman, G. J. (1980). Introduction to operations research (3rd ed.). Oakland, CA: Holden-Day.
11.
Jonides, J., and Gleitman, H. (1972). A conceptual categorization effect in visual search: 0 as letter or digit. Perception and Psychophysics, 12, 457-460.
12.
LaBerge, D. (1973). Attention and the measurement of perceptual learning. Memory and Cognition, 1, 268-276.
13.
Shiffrin, R. M., and Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 127-190.
14.
Tanner, N., and Fisher, D. L. (October 1988). A visual search model for selection of graphic symbols. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp. 1320-1323). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.
15.
Treisman, A., and Gelade, G. (1980). A feature integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.
16.
Tversky, A. (1977). Features of similarity. Psychological Review, 84, 327-352.
17.
U.S. Army (1970. May). Field Manual 21-30: Military symbols. Washington, DC: Author.
18.
Williams, L. G. (1966). Target conspicuity and visual search. Human Factors, 8, 80-92.
