Abstract
A series of experiments are reported in which the comparative constraints on single-feature and conjunction searches were examined. The first three tested the idea that the critical differences between these searches reflect the number of stimulus attributes that subjects must extract to make a response, that is, one in the feature condition, two in the conjunction condition. Targets were defined by possible pairwise combinations of a color, a size, and a shape. In another condition, subjects searched for two simultaneously present feature targets. Search for these targets did not differ qualitatively from that for a single-feature target (i.e., search remained parallel), but there was a constant increment to feature search functions. The final experiment examined the possibility that the number of relevant shared features between targets and distractors may also be critical. The results showed that the number of relevant shared features affected the rate of search but not its nature. Thus, differences between feature and conjunction searches do not reflect the number of relevant stimulus attributes that must be detected, or the number of relevant features shared between targets and distractors. Nevertheless, evidence for attentional involvement was found when subjects searched for two simultaneously present features. This goes against the claim that differences between the two types of search occur because feature searches can be carried out preattentively, while only conjunction searches involve the serial application of focused attention. An account of visual search performance that emphasizes the fidelity of coding of target information seems a more adequate proposal.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allport, D. A. (1971). Parallel encoding within and between elementary stimulus dimensions.Perception & Psychophysics,10, 104–108.
Allport, O. A., Tipper, S. P., &Chmiel, N. R. J. (1985). Perceptual integration and postcategorical filtering. In M. I. Posner & O. S. M. Marin (Eds.),Attention and performance XI. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Attneave, F. (1950). Dimensions of similarity.American Journal of Psychology,63, 516–556.
Bundesen, C., &Pedersen, L. F. (1983). Color segregation and visual search.Perception & Psychophysics,33, 487–493.
Cowey, A. (1979). Cortical maps and visual perception.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,31, 1–17.
Duncan, J. (1980). The locus of interference in the perception of simultaneous stimuli.Psychological Review,87, 272–300.
Duncan, J. (1984). Selective attention and the organization of visual information.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,113, 501–517.
Duncan, J. (1985). Visual search and visual attention. In M. I. Posner & O. S. M. Mann (Eds.),Attention and performance XI. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Egeth, H. E., Virzi, R. A., &Gargart, H. (1984). Searching for conjunctively defined targets.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 32–39.
Garner, W. R. (1974).The processing of information and structure. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum.
Handel, S., &Imai, S. (1972). The free classification of analyzable and unanalyzable stimuli.Perception & Psychophysics,12, 108–116.
Humphreys, G. W., Riddoch, M. J., &Quinlan, P. T. (1985). Interactive processes in perceptual organization: Evidence from visual agnosia. In M. I. Posner & O. S. M. Marin (Eds.),Attention and performance XI. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Minsky, M. (1975). A framework for representing knowledge. In P. H. Winston (Ed.),The psychology of computer vision. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ostry, D., Moray, N., &Marks, G. (1976). Attention, practice, and semantic targets.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,2, 326–336.
Sternberg, S. (1975). Memory scanning: New findings and current controversies.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,27, 1–32.
Treisman, A. M. (1982). Perceptual grouping and attention in visual search for features and for objects.Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception & Performance,8, 194–214.
Treisman, A. M., &Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention.Cognitive Psychology,12, 97–136.
Treisman, A. M., &Schmidt, H. (1982). Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects.Cognitive Psychology,14, 107–141.
Treisman, A. M., &Souther, J. (1985). Search asymmetry: A diagnostic for preattentive processing of separable features.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,114, 285–310.
Treisman, A. M., Sykes, M., &Gelade, G. (1977). Selective attention and stimulus integration. In S. Dornic (Ed.),Attention and performance VI. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported by grants from the Economic and Social Research Council Experiment 4 arose out of suggestions made by John Duncan and Marge Eldridge.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Quinlan, P.T., Humphreys, G.W. Visual search for targets defined by combinations of color, shape, and size: An examination of the task constraints on feature and conjunction searches. Perception & Psychophysics 41, 455–472 (1987). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203039
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03203039