Distinguishing between serial and parallel processing modes in visual search tasks remains a challenge in cognitive psychology. The multiple target search (MTS) paradigm, which utilizes target redundancy gains to identify parallel searches, is currently one of the promising approaches for this distinction. Despite being proposed five decades ago, this method has not gained widespread acceptance among researchers in visual search area, potentially due to two limitations. One is its inability to reliably detect redundancy gains in established parallel searches (e.g., the distinct popout color search). The other is the presence of redundancy gains in pure-target-absent trials, which are apparently incompatible with the MTS’s explanation of redundancy gains. In this study, we tested a modified version of the traditional reaction-time-based MTS (rt-MTS) by developing an accuracy-based MTS (acc-MTS). The results suggested that the acc-MTS successfully overcomes the aforementioned limitations of the rt-MTS paradigm while maintaining significantly greater efficiency. These findings established the acc-MTS as a reliable and efficient methodological advancement for determining the serial or parallel nature of visual search tasks.
AdkinsC. J.MorganB. J.AlluisiE. A. (1979). Information processing in a binary classification task. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 48(3 Pt 1), 851–861. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1979.48.3.851
2.
BergenJ. R.JuleszB. (1983). Parallel versus serial processing in rapid pattern discrimination. Nature, 303(5919), 696–698. https://doi.org/10.1038/303696a0
3.
BergerJ. O.WolpertR. L. (1988). The likelihood principle. Institute of Mathematical Statistics.
4.
CameronE. L.TaiJ. C.EcksteinM. P.CarrascoM. (2004). Signal detection theory applied to three visual search tasks—Identification, yes/no detection and localization. Spatial Vision, 17(4/5), 295–325. https://doi.org/10.1163/1568568041920212
CunninghamC. A.WolfeJ. M. (2014). The role of object categories in hybrid visual and memory search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4), 1585–1599. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036313
DonkinC.LittleD. R.HouptJ. W. (2014). Assessing the speed-accuracy trade-off effect on the capacity of information processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(3), 1183–1202. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035947
EcksteinM. P. (1998). The lower visual search efficiency for conjunctions is due to noise and not serial attentional processing. Psychological Science, 9(2), 111–118. https://doi.org/10/b5kth3
11.
EcksteinM. P.ThomasJ. P.PalmerJ.ShimozakiS. S. (2000). A signal detection model predicts the effects of set size on visual search accuracy for feature, conjunction, triple conjunction, and disjunction displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 62(3), 425–451. https://doi.org/10/dptqbf
12.
EgethH. (1966). Parallel versus serial processes in multidimensional stimulus discrimination. Perception & Psychophysics, 1, 245–252.
13.
EgethH. E.FolkC. L.MullinP. A. (1989). Spatial parallelism in the processing of lines, letters, and lexicality. In SheppB. E.BallesterosS. (Eds.), Object perception: Structure and process (pp. 19–52). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
14.
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(2), 551–560. https://doi.org/10/fdnd27
EriksenC. W.SpencerT. (1969). Rate of information processing in visual perception: Some results and methodological considerations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 79, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0026873
17.
FitousiD. (2021). When two faces are not better than one: Serial limited-capacity processing with redundant-target faces. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 83(8), 3118–3134. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02335-9
18.
GeislerW. S.ChouK. (1995). Separation of low-level and high-level factors in complex tasks: Visual search. Psychological Review, 102, 356–378.
19.
GildenD. L.ThorntonT. L.MarusichL. R. (2010). The serial process in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 36(3), 533–542. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016464
20.
HershensonM. (1962). Reaction time as a measure of intersensory facilitation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 289–293. https://doi.org/10/bmghzr
21.
HullemanJ.OliversC. (2017). The impending demise of the item in visual search. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 40, E132.
22.
HumphreysG. W.MüllerH. J. (1993). SEarch via Recursive Rejection (SERR): A connectionist model of visual search. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 43–110. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1993.1002
23.
KarmaliF.ChaudhuriS. E.YiY.MerfeldD. M. (2016). Determining thresholds using adaptive procedures and psychometric fits: Evaluating efficiency using theory, simulations, and human experiments. Experimental Brain Research, 234(3), 773–789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00221-015-4501-8
LeeJ.JungK.HanS. W. (2021). Serial, self-terminating search can be distinguished from others: Evidence from multi-target search data. Cognition, 212, 104736. https://doi.org/10/gpcbdp
26.
LiesefeldH. R.MüllerH. J. (2020). A theoretical attempt to revive the serial/parallel-search dichotomy. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 82(1), 228–245. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01819-z
27.
LuceR.D. (1963). Detection and recognition. In LuceR.D.BushR.R.GalanterE. (Eds.), Handbook of mathematical psychology (pp. 103–189). Wiley.
28.
MillerJ. (1978). Multidimensional same-different judgments: Evidence against independent comparisons of dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 4, 411–422.
29.
MillerJ. (1982). Divided attention: Evidence for coactivation with redundant signals. Cognitive Psychology, 14(2), 247–279. https://doi.org/10/bg4xjg
30.
MooreC. M.WolfeJ. M. (2001). Getting beyond the serial/parallel debate in visual search: A hybrid approach. In ShapiroK. (Ed.), The limits of attention: temporal constraints in human information processing. (pp. 178-198). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198505150.003.0009
31.
MoranR.ZehetleitnerM.LiesefeldH. R.MüllerH. J.UsherM. (2016). Serial vs. parallel models of attention in visual search: Accounting for benchmark RT-distributions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(5), 1300–1315. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-015-0978-1
32.
MordkoffJ. T.EgethH. E. (1993). Response time and accuracy revisited: Converging support for the interactive race model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19(5), 981–991. https://doi.org/10/cjn83x
33.
MordkoffJ. T.YantisS. (1991). An interactive race model of divided attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 17(2), 520–538. https://doi.org/10/dfkht3
34.
NakayamaK.SilvermanG. H. (1986). Serial and parallel processing of visual feature conjunctions. Nature, 320(6059), 264–265. https://doi.org/10/ddsgvg
35.
PalmerJ. (1995). Attention in visual search: Distinguishing four causes of a set-size effect. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(4), 118–123. https://doi.org/10/fcz9mh
PashlerH. (1987). Detecting conjunctions of color and form: Reassessing the serial search hypothesis. Perception & Psychophysics, 41(3), 191–201. https://doi.org/10/dk4hwg
RidgwayN.MildersM.SahraieA. (2008). Redundant target effect and the processing of colour and luminance. Experimental Brain Research, 187(1), 153–160. https://doi.org/10/dvw7bf
SchröterH.UlrichR.MillerJ. (2007). Effects of redundant auditory stimuli on reaction time. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14(1), 39–44. https://doi.org/10/cd8xh9
42.
SchwarzW. (2006). On the relationship between the redundant signals effect and temporal order judgments: Parametric data and a new model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 32(3), 558–573. https://doi.org/10/cmkvzb
43.
ShepardR.N. (1958). Stimulus and response generalization: Deduction of the generalization gradient from a trace model. Psychological Review, 65, 242–283.
44.
SnodgrassJ. G.TownsendJ. T. (1980). Comparing parallel and serial models: Theory and implementation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 6, 330–354. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.6.2.330
45.
SnodgrassJ. G. (1972). Reaction times for comparisons of successively presented visual patterns: Evidence for serial self-terminating search. Perception & Psychophysics, 12(4), 364–372.
46.
SungK. (2008). Serial and parallel attentive visual searches: Evidence from cumulative distribution functions of response times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 34(6), 1372–1388. https://doi.org/10/frdzpq
47.
ThorntonT. L.GildenD. L. (2001). Attentional limitations in the sensing of motion direction. Cognitive Psychology, 43(1), 23–52. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.2001.0751
48.
ThorntonT. L.GildenD. L. (2007). Parallel and serial processes in visual search. Psychological Review, 114(1), 71–103. https://doi.org/10/cq8mzw
49.
TownsendJ. TAshbyF. G. (1983). Stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. Cambridge University Press.
50.
TownsendJ. T. (1974). Issues and models concerning the processing of a finite number of inputs. In KantowitzB. H. (Ed.), Human information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition. (pp. 133–168). Lawrence Erlbaum.
51.
TownsendJ. T. (1976). Serial and within-stage independent parallel model equivalence on the minimum completion time. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 14, 219–238.
52.
TownsendJ. T. (1981). Some characteristics of visual whole report behavior. Acta Psychologica, 47, 149–173.
53.
TownsendJ. T. (1984). Uncovering mental processes with factorial experiments. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 28(4), 363–400.
54.
TownsendJ. T. (1990). Serial vs. Parallel processing: Sometimes they look like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but they can (and should) be distinguished. Psychological Science, 1(1), 46–54. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1990.tb00067.x
55.
TownsendJ. T.ColoniusH. (1997). Parallel processing response times and experimental determination of the stopping rule. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 41(4), 392–397. https://doi.org/10/cjddrf
56.
TownsendJ.T.EvansR. (1983). A systems approach to parallel-serial testability and visual feature processing. In GeisslerH.G. (Ed.), Modern issues in perception (pp. 166–189). VEB Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.
57.
TownsendJ. T.WengerM. J. (2004). The serial-parallel dilemma: A case study in a linkage of theory and method. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11(3), 391–418. https://doi.org/10/d57jgp
58.
TownsendJ. T.NozawaG. (1997). Serial exhaustive models can violate the race model inequality: Implications for architecture and capacity. Psychological Review, 104(3), 595–602.
59.
TownsendJ. T.WengerM. J. (2014). On the dynamic perceptual characteristics of gestalten: Theory-based methods. Oxford University Press
TreismanA.SoutherJ. (1985). Search asymmetry: A diagnostic for preattentive processing of separable features. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 114, 285–310. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.114.3.285
62.
van der HeijdenA. H. C. (1975). Some evidence for a limited capacity parallel selfterminating process in simple visual search tasks. Acta Psychologica, 39(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-6918(75)90019-0
63.
van der HeijdenA. H. C.La HeijW.BoerJ. P. A. (1983). Parallel processing of redundant targets in simple visual search tasks. Psychological Research, 45(3), 235–254. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00308704
64.
Van ZandtT.TownsendJ. T. (1993). Self-terminating versus exhaustive processes in rapid visual and memory search: An evaluative review. Perception & Psychophysics, 53(5), 563–580. https://doi.org/10/d2jtv5
65.
VergheseP. (2001). Visual search and attention: A signal detection theory approach. Neuron, 31(4), 523–535. https://doi.org/10/fnfhpk
66.
WardR.McClellandJ. L. (1989). Conjunctive search for one and two identical targets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15(4), 664–672. https://doi.org/10.1037//0096-1523.15.4.664
67.
WhiteA. L.PalmerJ.BoyntonG. M. (2018). Evidence of serial processing in visual word recognition. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1062–1071. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617751898
68.
WolfeJ. M. (1998). What can 1 million trials tell us about visual search. Psychological Science, 9, 33–39.
69.
WolfeJ. M. (2021). Guided Search 6.0: An updated model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28, 1060–1092.
70.
WoodmanG. F.LuckS. J. (2003). Serial deployment of attention during visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 121–138. https://doi.org/10/b95nk7
71.
XinK.LiZ. (2020). Visual working memory load does not affect the overall stimulus processing time in visual search. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 73(3), 330–343.
72.
ZhengY.LouJ.LuY.LiZ. (2024). Multiple visual items can be simultaneously compared with target templates in memory. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 86(1), 1641–1652. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-024-02906-6
73.
ZhengY.WangT.LiZ. (2025). Start time affects the mode of color search: Evidence for a short-lived capacity-limited parallel process in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 51(8), 1025–1043. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0001337
