바로가기메뉴

본문 바로가기 주메뉴 바로가기

logo

ISSN : 1226-9654

Article Contents

Prev
e-Submission

Vol.28 No.4
Citation Share

Failure of Transferring Target-Prevalence Effect Driven by Visual Dissimilarity of Search Items between Two Independent Search Tasks

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology / The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, (P)1226-9654; (E)2733-466X
2016, v.28 no.4, pp.699-706
https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2016.28.4.007



& (2016). Failure of Transferring Target-Prevalence Effect Driven by Visual Dissimilarity of Search Items between Two Independent Search Tasks. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 28(4), 699-706, https://doi.org/10.22172/cogbio.2016.28.4.007
  • Downloaded
  • Viewed
PDF Download

Abstract

The probability of target presence in visual search influences search efficiency by changing the criteria for response-decision making, and this has been known as target prevalence effect (TPE). Our previous study observed that the TPE in one search task with varying target prevalence was transferred to the performance of the other concurrent search task. Specifically, the study found a transfer of the TPE when the search items were visually identical between the search tasks but differed in their target prevalence, but found no such transfer when they were visually dissimilar. The study accordingly pinpointed to a lack of visual similarity between the search tasks for the absence of the TPE. Nevertheless, the search tasks did not only differ visually, but also differed in the way each search task was defined. The present study examined whether the TPE can be transferred across two search tasks where search-relevant features of the search items were exactly identical to each other but their search-irrelevant features were visually dissimilar. The results showed no indication of a transfer of the TPE, suggesting that the TPE can only be transferable across the search tasks where their search items are visually and specifically similar to each other.

keywords
visual search, response-decision making, target prevalence effect (TPE), transfer, 시각탐색, 반응 의사결정, 표적 출현확률 효과, 전이

Reference

1.

Bundesen, C. (1990). A theory of visual attention. Psychological Review, 97, 523.

2.

Bundesen, C., Habekost, T., & Kyllingsbæk, S. (2005). A neural theory of visual attention:bridging cognition and neurophysiology. Psychological Review, 112, 291.

3.

Godwin, H. J., Menneer, T., Cave, K. R., Thaibsyah, M., & Donnelly, N. (2015). The effects of increasing target prevalence on information processing during visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 22, 469-475.

4.

Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (1998). Visual search has no memory. Nature, 394, 575-577.

5.

Ishibashi, K., Kita, S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2012). The effects of local prevalence and explicit expectations on search termination times. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 115-123.

6.

Knill, D. C., & Richards, W. (Eds.). (1996). Perception as Bayesian inference. Cambridge, UK:Cambridge University Press.

7.

Kunar, M. A., Rich, A. N., & Wolfe, J. M. (2010). Spatial and temporal separation fails to counteract the effects of low prevalence in visual search. Visual Cognition, 18, 881-897.

8.

Kwak, H. W., Dagenbach, D., & Egeth, H. (1991). Further evidence for a time-independent shift of the focus of attention. Perception & Psychophysics, 49, 473-480.

9.

Mannan, S. K., Kennard, C., Potter, D., Pan, Y., & Soto, D. (2010). Early oculomotor capture by new onsets driven by the contents of working memory. Vision Research, 50, 1590-1597.

10.

Park, H. -B., Son, H. -G., & Hyun, J. -S. (2015). Characterizing information processing in visual search according to probability of target prevalence. Korean Journal of Cognitive Science, 26, 357-375.

11.

Park, H. -B., Son, H. -G., & Hyun, J. -S. (2016). Transferability of target prevalence effect across two dissociable-prevalence visual search tasks. The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology, 28, 349-365.

12.

Rich, A. N., Kunar, M. A., Van Wert, M. J., Hidalgo-Sotelo, B., Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2008). Why do we miss rare targets? Exploring the boundaries of the low prevalence effect. Journal of Vision, 8, 15.

13.

Sternberg, S. (1969). High-speed scanning in human memory. Science, 153, 652-654.

14.

Theeuwes, J., Reimann, B., & Mortier, K. (2006). Visual search for featural singletons: No top-down modulation, only bottom-up priming. Visual Cognition, 14, 466-489.

15.

Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97-136.

16.

Vickery, T. J., King, L. W., & Jiang, Y. (2005). Setting up the target template in visual search. Journal of Vision, 5, 8.

17.

Wolfe, J. M., Brunelli, D. N., Rubinstein, J., & Horowitz, T. S. (2013). Prevalence effects in newly trained airport checkpoint screeners:trained observers miss rare targets, too. Journal of Vision, 13, 33.

18.

Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., & Kenner, N. M. (2005). Cognitive psychology: rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature, 435, 439-440.

19.

Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S., Van Wert, M. J., Kenner, N. M., Place, S. S., & Kibbi, N. (2007). Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 623.

20.

Wolfe, J. M., Treisman, A., & Horowitz, T. S. (2003). What shall we do with the preattentive processing stage: Use it or lose it. Journal of Vision, 3, 572.

21.

Wolfe, J. M., & Van Wert, M. J. (2010). Varying target prevalence reveals two dissociable decision criteria in visual search. Current Biology, 20, 121-124.

22.

Woodman, G. F., & Arita, J. T. (2011). Direct electrophysiological measurement of attentional templates in visual working memory. Psychological Science, 22, 212-215.

23.

Woodman, G. F., & Luck, S. J. (2003). Serial deployment of attention during visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29, 121.

The Korean Journal of Cognitive and Biological Psychology

e-Submission OA Policy