바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev Next
e-Submission

Vol.27 No.3
Citation Share

Distinct load effects by set-size and target-distractor similarity in visual search

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2015, v.27 no.3, pp.505-518
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2015.27.3.008

(2015). Distinct load effects by set-size and target-distractor similarity in visual search. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 27(3), 505-518, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2015.27.3.008
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

Using the simultaneous-sequential presentation search paradigm, we investigated how different types of load manipulation would tap into attentional resources and the concrete mechanism by which search would be performed. Search display perceptual load was manipulated by set-size and target-distractor similarity. The benefit of sequential presentation was larger when the load was increased by number of search items than when target-distractor discrimination was made more demanding. Considering that the load effect could be result from both perceptual load and statistical decision noise, the current results are explained by suggesting that set-size will determine whether the search process will be serial or parallel, regardless of perceptual difficulty. Factors that can set the limit of attentional resources are also discussed.

keywords
visual search, capacity limit, serial process, parallel process, 시각 탐색, 용량제한, 순차 처리, 병렬 처리

Reference

1.

Duncan, J. (1980). The locus of interference in the perception of simultaneous stimuli. Psychological Review, 87, 272-300.

2.

Duncan, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96, 433-458.

3.

Fisher, D. L. (1982). Limited-channel models of automatic detection: Capacity and scanning in visual search. Psychological Review, 89, 662-692.

4.

Fisher, D. L., Duffy, S. A., Young, C., & Pollatsek, A. (1988). Understanding the central processing limit in consistent-mapping visual search tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 253-266.

5.

Huang, L., & Pashler, H. (2005). Attention capacity and task difficulty in visual search. Cognition, 94, 101-111.

6.

Jiang, Y., & Chun, M. M. (2001). Selective attention modulates implicit learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 54, 1105- 1124.

7.

Lavie, N. (1995). Perceptual load as a necessary condition for selective attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21, 451-468.

8.

Lavie, N., & DeFockert, J. W. (2003). Contrasting effects of sensory limits and capacity limits in visual selective attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 202-212.

9.

Lavie, N., Hirst, A., DeFockert, J. W., & Essi, V. (2004). Load theory of selective attention and cogntivie control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 133, 339-354.

10.

Palmer, J. (1994). Set-size effects in visual search: The effect of attention is independent of the stimulus for simple tasks. Vision Research, 13, 1703-1721.

11.

Shaw, M. L. (1982). Attending to multiple sources of information. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 353- 409.

12.

Zhang, W., & Luck, S. J. (2008). Discrete fixed-resolution representations in visual working memory. Nature. 453, 233-235

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy