Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Previous research suggests that (a) target localization tasks, (b) apprehension of spatial relations among stimuli, (c) critical features shared between target and non-target stimuli, and (d) mirror-image symmetry between target and non-targets each place demands on attention, resulting in poor search performance caused by capacity limitations. But, are these performance deficits actually caused by capacity limitations? Perhaps they are caused by early, pre-attentive visual processing or by noisy decision making instead of capacity limitations. If so, this has implications for the design of “user-friendly” displays to facilitate search performance. To address these questions, we controlled sensory effects and systematically varied the complexity and number of stimuli as well as whether non-targets were mirror-images of the target. Comparisons of data to theoretical predictions showed that capacity limitations occurred only when the target shared critical features with complex non-target stimuli, so that one must apprehend spatial relations of each object's component parts. No other factors resulted in capacity limitations. Moreover, although mirror-image symmetry adversely affected early visual preattentive processing, it did not place additional demands on attention.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bennett

P.J.

Jaye

P.D.

(1995). Letter localization, not discrimination, is constrained by attention. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49, 460–503.

Davis

E.T.

Kramer

Graham

(1983). Uncertainty about spatial frequency, spatial position, and contrast. Perception and Psychophysics, 33, 20–28.

Davis

E.T.

Shikano

Peterson

S.A.

Michel

R.K.

(2003). Divided attention and visual search for simple versus complex features. Vision Research, in press.

Gescheider

G.A.

(1985). Psychophysics: Method, Theory, and Application. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Graham

N.V.S.

(1989). Visual Pattern Analyzers. New York: Oxford.

Green

D.M.

Luce

R.D.

(1974). Variability of magnitude estimates: A timing theory analysis. Perception and Psychophysics, 15, 291–300.

Green

D.M.

Swets

J.A.

(1988). Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. Los Altos, CA: Peninsula Publishing.

Logan

(1994). Spatial attention and the apprehension of spatial relations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20, 1015–1036.

Macmillan

N.A.

Creelman

C.D.

(1991). Detection Theory: A User's Guide. New York: Cambridge University Press.

10.

McLean

J.E.

(1999). Processing capacity of visual perception and memory encoding. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Washington, Seattle.

11.

Palmer

(1994). Set-size effects in visual search: The effect of attention is independent of the stimulus for simple tasks. Vision Research, 34, 1703–1721.

12.

Shaw

M.L.

(1980). Identifying attentional and decision-making components in information processing. In Nickerson

. Attention and Performance VIII. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

13.

Treisman

Gormican

(1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological Review, 95, 15–48.

14.

Wolfe

J.M.

Friedman-Hill

S.R.

(1992). On the role of symmetry in visual search. Psychological Science, 3, 194–198.

Searching Visual Displays: The Role of Attention

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References