Abstract
Visual search can benefit when one set of distractors is presented as a preview, prior to the appearance the second set of distractors plus the target (Watson & Humphreys, 1997). It has been shown that changing the shape of the old, previewed stimuli when the new items appear causes the old stimuli to recompete for selection with the new ones. In contrast, changing the luminance or color of the old stimuli has no detrimental effects. Here, we present five experiments that reassessed the effect of luminance changes in preview search. We show (1) that preview search is remarkably resistant to large changes in the absolute luminance of the old stimuli, even when those changes would ordinarily be sufficient to signal the appearance of a new object and draw attention (Experiments 1 and 2), and (2) that resistance to luminance changes can be bolstered by feature-based inhibitory processes (Experiments 3–5). These findings are discussed in terms of the possible ecological properties of time-based visual selection and possible mechanisms underlying the preview benefit.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agter, F., & Donk, M. (2005). Prioritized selection in visual search through onset capture and color inhibition: Evidence from a probe-dot detection task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 722–730.
Allen, H. A., & Humphreys, G. W. (2007). Previewing distracters reduces their effective contrast. Vision Research, 47, 2992–3000.
Allen, H. A., Humphreys, G. W., & Matthews, P. M. (2008). A neural marker of content-specific active ignoring. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 34, 286–297.
Belopolsky, A. V., Peterson, M. S., & Kramer, A. F. (2005). Visual search in temporally segregated displays: Converging operations in the study of the preview benefit. Cognitive Brain Research, 24, 453–466.
Braithwaite, J. J., Hulleman, J., Watson, D. G., & Humphreys, G. W. (2006). Is it impossible to inhibit isoluminant items, or does it simply take longer? Evidence from preview search. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 290–300.
Braithwaite, J. J., & Humphreys, G. W. (2003). Inhibition and anticipation in visual search: Evidence from effects of color foreknowledge on preview search. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 213–237.
Braithwaite, J. J., & Humphreys, G. W. (2007). Filtering items of mass distraction: Top-down biases against distractors are necessary for the feature-based carry-over to occur. Vision Research, 47, 1570–1583.
Braithwaite, J. J., Humphreys, G. W., & Hodsoll, J. (2003). Color grouping in space and time: Evidence from negative color-based carryover effects in preview search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 758–778.
Braithwaite, J. J., Humphreys, G. W., & Hodsoll, J. (2004). Effects of colour on preview search: Anticipatory and inhibitory biases for colour. Spatial Vision, 17, 389–415.
Braithwaite, J. J., Humphreys, G. W., & Hulleman, J. (2005). Colorbased grouping and inhibition in visual search: Evidence from a probe detection analysis of preview search. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 81–101.
Braithwaite, J. J., Humphreys., G. W., Hulleman, J., & Watson, D. G. (2007). Fast color grouping and slow color inhibition: Evidence for distinct temporal windows for separate processes in preview search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 33, 503–517.
Braithwaite, J. J., Humphreys, G. W., Watson, D. G., & Hulleman, J. (2005). Revisiting preview search at isoluminance: New onsets are not necessary for the preview advantage. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 1214–1228.
Chun, M. M., & Wolfe, J. M. (1996). Just say no: How are visual searches terminated when there is no target present? Cognitive Psychology, 30, 39–78.
Davoli, C. C., Suszko, J. W., & Abrams, R. A. (2007). New objects can capture attention without a unique luminance transient. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 338–343.
Donk, M. (2005). Prioritizing selection of new elements: On the time course of the preview effect. Visual Cognition, 12, 1373–1385.
Donk, M. (2006). The preview benefit: Visual marking, feature-based inhibition, temporal segregation, or onset capture? Visual Cognition, 14, 736–748.
Donk, M., & Theeuwes, J. (2001). Visual marking beside the mark: Prioritizing selection by abrupt onsets. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 891–900.
Donk, M., & Theeuwes, J. (2003). Prioritizing selection of new elements: Bottom-up versus top-down control. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 1231–1242.
Donk, M., & Verburg, R. C. (2004). Prioritizing new elements with a brief preview period: Evidence against visual marking. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 282–288.
Downing, C. J., & Pinker, S. (1985). The spatial structure of visual attention. In M. I. Posner & O. S. M. Marin (Eds.), Attention and performance XI: Mechanisms of attention and visual search (pp. 171–188). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Eriksen, C. W., & St. James, J. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Perception & Psychophysics, 40, 225–240.
Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Johnston, J. C. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 18, 1030–1044.
Folk, C. L., Remington, R. W., & Wright, J. H. (1994). The structure of attentional control: Contingent attentional capture by apparent motion, abrupt onset, and color. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 317–329.
Franconeri, S. L., Hollingworth, A., & Simons, D. J. (2005). Do new objects capture attention? Psychological Science, 16, 275–281.
Hodsoll, J. P., & Humphreys, G. W. (2005). Preview search and contextual cuing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 1346–1358.
Humphreys, G. W., Kyllingsbæk, S., Watson, D. G., Olivers, C. N. L., Law, I., & Paulson, O. B. (2004). Parieto-occipital areas involved in efficient filtering in search: A time course analysis of visual marking using behavioural and functional imaging procedures. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 57A, 610–635.
Humphreys, G. W., & Müller, H. J. (1993). SEarch via Recursive Rejection (SERR): A connectionist model of visual search. Cognitive Psychology, 25, 43–110.
Humphreys, G. W., Olivers, C. N. L., & Braithwaite, J. J. (2006). The time course of preview search with color-defined, not luminance-defined, stimuli. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, 1351–1358.
Humphreys, G. W., Olivers, C. N. L., & Yoon, E. Y. (2006). An onset advantage without a preview benefit: Neuropsychological evidence separating onset and preview effects in search. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 110–120.
Humphreys, G. W., Quinlan, P. T., & Riddoch, M. J. (1989). Grouping processes in visual search: Effects with single- and combined-feature targets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 118, 258–279.
Humphreys, G. W., Stalmann, B. J., & Olivers, C. (2004). An analysis of the time course of attention in preview search. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 713–730.
Humphreys, G. W., Watson, D. G., & Jolicoeur, P. (2002). Fractionating the preview benefit in search: Dual-task decomposition of visual marking by timing and modality. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 640–660.
Jacobsen, T., Humphreys, G. W., Schröger, E., & Roeber, U. (2002). Visual marking for search: Behavioral and event-related potential analyses. Cognitive Brain Research, 14, 410–421.
Jiang, Y., Chun, M. M., & Marks, L. E. (2002a). Visual marking: Dissociating effects of new and old set size. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 28, 293–302.
Jiang, Y., Chun, M. M., & Marks, L. E. (2002a). Visual marking: Selective attention to asynchronous temporal groups. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 717–730.
Jiang, Y., & Wang, S. W. (2004). What kind of memory supports visual marking? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 30, 79–91.
Jingling, L., & Yeh, S.-L. (2007). New objects do not capture attention without a top-down setting: Evidence from an inattentional blindness task. Visual Cognition, 15, 661–684.
Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Burkell, J. (1983). The cost of visual filtering. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 9, 510–522.
Kawahara, J.-I., & Yamada, Y. (2006). Two noncontiguous locations can be attended concurrently: Evidence from the attentional blink. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 594–599.
Kramer, A. F., & Atchley, P. (2000). Age-related effects in the marking of old objects in visual search. Psychology & Aging, 15, 286–296.
Kramer, A. F., & Hahn, S. (1995). Splitting the beam: Distribution of attention over noncontiguous regions of the visual field. Psychological Science, 6, 381–386.
Kunar, M. A., & Humphreys, G. W. (2006). Object-based inhibitory priming in preview search: Evidence from the “top-up” procedure. Memory & Cognition, 34, 459–474.
Kunar, M. A., Humphreys, G. W., & Smith, K. J. (2003a). History matters: The preview benefit in search is not onset capture. Psychological Science, 14, 181–185.
Kunar, M. A., Humphreys, G. W., & Smith, K. J. (2003b). Visual change with moving displays: More evidence for color feature map inhibition during preview search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 779–792.
Kunar, M. A., Humphreys, G. W., Smith, K. J., & Watson, D. G. (2003). When a reappearance is old news: Visual marking survives occlusion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 185–198.
Kunar, M. A., Shapiro, K. L., & Humphreys, G. W. (2006). Top-up search and the attentional blink: A two-stage account of the preview effect in search. Visual Cognition, 13, 677–699.
Mason, D. J., Humphreys, G. W., & Kent, L. (2004). Visual search, singleton capture, and the control of attentional set in ADHD. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 21, 661–687.
Olivers, C. N. L., & Humphreys, G. W. (2002). When visual marking meets the attentional blink: More evidence for top-down, limited-capacity inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 22–42.
Olivers, C. N. L., & Humphreys, G. W. (2003). Visual marking inhibits singleton capture. Cognitive Psychology, 47, 1–42.
Olivers, C. N. L., Humphreys, G. W., & Braithwaite, J. J. (2006). The preview search task: Evidence for visual marking. Visual Cognition, 14, 716–735.
Olivers, C. N. L., Humphreys, G. W., Heinke, D., & Cooper, A. C. G. (2002). Prioritization in visual search: Visual marking is not dependent on a mnemonic search. Perception & Psychophysics, 64, 540–560.
Olivers, C. N. L., Smith, S., Matthews, P., & Humphreys, G. W. (2005). Prioritizing new over old: An f MRI study of the preview search task. Human Brain Mapping, 24, 69–78.
Olivers, C. N. L., Watson, D. G., & Humphreys, G. W. (1999). Visual marking of locations and feature maps: Evidence from within-dimension defined conjunctions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52A, 679–715.
Peterson, M. S., Belopolsky, A. V., & Kramer, A. F. (2003). Contingent visual marking by transients. Perception & Psychophysics, 65, 695–710.
Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25.
Pratt, J., Theeuwes, J., & Donk, M. (2007). Offsets and prioritizing the selection of new elements in search displays: More evidence for attentional capture in the preview effect. Visual Cognition, 15, 133–148.
Rauschenberger, R. (2003). When something old becomes something new: Spatiotemporal object continuity and attentional capture. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 600–615.
Theeuwes, J., Kramer, A. F., & Atchley, P. (1998). Visual marking of old objects. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 5, 130–134.
Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.
Watson, D. G. (2001). Visual marking in moving displays: Feature-based inhibition is not necessary. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 74–84.
Watson, D. G., & Humphreys, G. W. (1997). Visual marking: Prioritizing selection for new objects by top-down attentional inhibition of old objects. Psychological Review, 104, 90–122.
Watson, D. G., & Humphreys, G. W. (1998). Visual marking of moving objects: A role for top-down feature-based inhibition in selection. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 946–962.
Watson, D. G., & Humphreys, G. W. (2000). Visual marking: Evidence for inhibition using a probe-dot detection paradigm. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 471–481.
Watson, D. G., & Humphreys, G. W. (2002). Visual marking and visual change. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 379–395.
Watson, D. G., & Humphreys, G. W. (2005). Visual marking: The effects of irrelevant changes on preview search. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 418–434.
Watson, D. G., Humphreys, G. W., & Olivers, C. N. L. (2003). Visual marking: Using time in visual selection. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 7, 180–186.
Watson, D. G., & Inglis, M. (2007). Eye movements and time-based selection: Where do the eyes go in preview search? Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 852–857.
Watson, D. G., & Maylor, E. A. (2002). Aging and visual marking: Selective deficits for moving stimuli. Psychology & Aging, 17, 321–339.
Wolfe, J. M. (1998). Visual search. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 13–73). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Yantis, S., & Hillstrom, A. P. (1994). Stimulus-driven attentional capture: Evidence from equiluminant visual objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 20, 95–107.
Yantis, S., & Johnson, D. N. (1990). Mechanisms of attentional priority. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 16, 812–825.
Yantis, S., & Jones, E. (1991). Mechanisms of attentional selection: Temporally modulated priority tags. Perception & Psychophysics, 50, 166–178.
Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1984). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 10, 601–621.
Yantis, S., & Jonides, J. (1990). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Voluntary versus automatic allocation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 16, 121–134.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by grants from the BBSRC, the ESRC, and the MRC (U.K.).
Note—Accepted by the editorial board of Editor-Elect Jeremy M. Wolfe.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Watson, D.G., Braithwaite, J.J. & Humphreys, G.W. Resisting change: The influence of luminance changes on visual marking and the preview benefit. Perception & Psychophysics 70, 1526–1539 (2008). https://doi.org/10.3758/PP.70.8.1526
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/PP.70.8.1526