Participants completed a visual search task that varied along three dimensions: 1) stimulus type: ecologically valid humans or ecologically neutral objects, 2) stimulus behavior: static, dynamic or random, and 3) number of targets: one or two. Search was faster when ecologically valid stimuli were used, and when these moved in a predictable fashion. Certain types of visual searches require search memory, or the ability to mentally tag previously examined objects. This search memory is optimized when ecologically valid stimuli are used. Design of visual search interfaces should take into account both the task and the stimuli.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaddeleyA. D. (1990). Human Memory: Theory and Practice, Revised ed. NeedhamHeights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
2.
DowningC. J.PickerS. (1985). The spatial structure of visual attention. In PosnerM. I.MarinO. S. M. (Eds). Attention and Performance XI. Hillsdale, NJ; Erlbaum, 171–187.
3.
GibsonB. S.LiL.SkowE.BrownK.CookeL. (2000). Searching for one versus two identical targets: When visual search has a memory. Psychological Science, 11, 324–327.
4.
HorowitzT.S.WolfeJ. M. (1998). Visual Search has no memory. Nature, 357, 575–577.
KristjanssonA. (2000). In search of Remembrance: Evidence for memory in visual search. Psychological Science, 11 (4), 328–332.
9.
TreismanA.GeladeG. (1988). A feature integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.
10.
WolfeJ. M. (1994). Guided search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review1, 202–238.
11.
WangQ.CavanaghP.GreenM. (1994). Familiarity and pop-out in visual search. Perception and Psychophysics, 56, 495–500.
12.
WolfeJ. M. (1996). Visual search. In PashlerH.Attention, London, UK: University College London Press.
13.
WolfeJ.M.OlivaA.ButcherS.ArsenioH.An unbinding problem: The desintegration of visible, previously attended objects does not attract attention. Journal of Vision, 2, 256–271. (2002).
