Psychological Research

, Volume 69, Issue 1–2, pp 77–105 | Cite as

Visual-memory search: An integrative perspective

Original Article

Abstract

A large, single-frame, visual-memory search experiment is reported in which memory and display loads of 1, 2, and 4 alphanumeric characters were factorially combined. In addition to the usual Consistent Mapping and Varied Mapping conditions, the experiment also involved a Categorical Varied Mapping condition in which different sets of stimuli switched roles as targets and distractors over trials. The stimuli used in these various mapping conditions were either digits, letters, or digits and letters. Analyses of the response time means obtained early and late in training suggest that the presence of categorical distinctions among the stimuli is the most important determinant of search efficiency. Comparison of the load effects on the response time means and on their standard deviations revealed a fairly constant ratio throughout the experimental conditions, which suggests that similar search processes may have been involved. A feature-based comparison model is indeed shown to account for the response time means obtained after extensive training under just about all training conditions, as well as for the ratios of load effects on means and standard deviations. According to the model, improvement in search efficiency results from a reduction in the number of features considered. The model’s performance questions the necessity to postulate qualitative differences between controlled and automatic processing, while the experiment forces a reassessment of the importance of the consistent mapping that underlies dual-process theories.

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research is dedicated to the memory of two of our professors: Y. Dagenais and M. Strobel. The research presented here involved intense collaborative work, which started when the first author was a graduate student under the supervision of the second author. Both authors want to express their gratitude to J. Carignan and A. Archambault for their assistance with the participants, and to M. Lassonde, I. Peretz, and P. Schyns for lending access to their computing facilities. Finally, this research and/or the resulting report benefited enormously from comments by M. Arguin, Y. Lacouture, G. Logan, G. Lacroix, C. Lefebvre, D. Fisher, J. Neely, and J. Tzelgov.

References

  1. Ashby, F. G. (1982). Deriving exact predictions from the cascade model. Psychological Review, 89, 599–607.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Briggs, G. E., & Johnsen, A. M. (1973). On the nature of central processes in choice reactions. Memory & Cognition, 1, 91–100.Google Scholar
  3. Bundesen, C. (1990). A theory of visual attention. Psychological Review, 97, 523–547.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Cardosi, K. M. (1986). Some determining factors of the alphanumeric category effect. Perception and Psychophysics, 40, 317–330.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Cheng, P. W. (1985). Restructuring versus automaticity: Alternate accounts of skill acquisition. Psychological Review, 92, 414–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Compton, B. J., & Logan, G. D. (1991). The transition from algorithm to retrieval in memory-based theories of automaticity. Memory & Cognition, 19, 151–158.Google Scholar
  8. Cousineau, D., & Shiffrin, R. M. (2003). Termination of a difficult visual search. Vision Research (manuscript submitted for publication).Google Scholar
  9. Czerwinski, M. Lightfoot, N., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1992). Automatization and training in visual search. American Journal of Psychology, 105, 271–315.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Delaney, P. F., Reder, L. M., Staszewski, J. J., & Ritter, F. E. (1998). The strategy-specific nature of improvement: The power law applies by strategy within task. Psychological Science, 9, 1–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Dumais, S. T. (1979). Perceptual Learning in Automatic Detection: Processes and Mechanisms. Doctoral thesis, Indiana University.Google Scholar
  12. Duncan, J. (1983). Category effects in visual search: A failure to replicate the “oh-zero” phenomenon. Perception and Psychophysics, 34, 221–232.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Duncan, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96, 433–458.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Fisher, D. L. (1984). Central capacity limits in consistent mapping, visual search tasks: Four channels or more? Cognitive Psychology, 16, 449–484.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Fisher, D. L. (1986). Hierarchical Models of Visual Search: Serial and Parallel Processing. Cambridge, MA: Society for Mathematical Psychology.Google Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Fisk, A. D., & Schneider, W. (1984). Consistent attending versus consistent responding in visual search: Task versus component consistency in automatic processing development. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22, 330–332.Google Scholar
  18. Haider, H., & Frensch, P. A. (1996). The role of information reduction in skill acquisition. Cognitive Psychology, 30, 304–337.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Haider, H., & Frensch, P. A. (1999). Eye-movement during skill acquisition: More evidence for the information-reduction hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25, 172–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Heathcote, A., Brown, S. & Mewhort, D. J. K. (2000). The power law repealed: The case for an exponential law of practice. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 185–207.Google Scholar
  21. Hintzman, D. L. (1986) “Schema abstraction” in a multiple-trace memory model. Psychological Review, 93, 411–428.Google Scholar
  22. Hockley, W. E. (1984). Analysis of response time distributions in the study of cognitive processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 10, 598–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hopkins, G. W., & Kristofferson, A. B. (1980). Ultrastable stimulus-reponse latencies: Acquisition and stimulus control. Perception and Psychophysics, 27, 241–250.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Horowitz, T. S., & Wolfe, J. M. (1998). Visual search has no memory. Nature, 394, 575–577PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. Jonides, J., & Gleitman, H. (1972). A conceptual category effect in visual search: o as letter or as digit. Perception and Psychophysics, 12, 457–460.Google Scholar
  27. Kramer, A. F., Strayer, D. L., Buckley, J. (1990). Development and transfer of automatic processing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 505–522.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Krueger, L. E. (1984). The category effect in visual search depends on physical rather than conceptual differences. Perception and Psychophysics, 35, 558–564.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Kyllingsbaeck, S., Schneider, W. X., Bundesen, C. (2001). Automatic attraction of attention to former targets in visual displays of letters. Perception and Psychophysics, 63, 85–98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Lassaline, M. E., & Logan, G. D. (1993). Memory-based automaticity in the discrimination of visual numerosity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 19, 561–581.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Logan, G. D. (1978). Attention in character-classification tasks: Evidence for the automaticity of component stages. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 107, 32–63.Google Scholar
  32. Logan, G. D. (1988). Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychological Review, 95, 492–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Logan, G. D. (1990). Repetition priming and automaticity: common underlying mechanisms? Cognitive Psychology, 22, 1–35.Google Scholar
  34. Logan, G. D. (1992). Shapes of reaction-time distributions and shapes of learning curves: A test of the instance theory of automaticity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 18, 883–914.Google Scholar
  35. Logan, G. D. (1996). The CODE theory of visual attention: An integration of space-based and object-based attention. Psychological Review, 103, 603–649.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Logan, G. D., & Stadler, M. A. (1991). Mechanisms of performance improvement in consistent mapping memory search: Automaticity or strategy shift? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 17, 478–496.Google Scholar
  37. McCarley, J. S., Wang, R. F., Kramer, A. F., Irwing, D. E., & Peterson, M. S. (2003). How much memory does oculomotor search have? Psychological Science, 14, 422–426.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. McClelland, J. L., & Rumelhart, D. E. (1981). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception. I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Miller, J. (1988). A warning about median reaction time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 14, 539–543.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. S. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive Skills and their Acquisition (pp. 1–55). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  42. Nosofsky, R. M., & Palmeri, T. J. (1997). An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. Psychological Review, 104, 266–300.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. Palmeri, T. J. (1999). Theories of automaticity and the power law of practice. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25, 543–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pylyshyn, Z. (1999). Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 341–423.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Rickard, T. C. (1997). Bending the power law: A CMPL theory of strategy shifts and the automatization of cognitive skills. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 126, 288–311.Google Scholar
  46. Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1982). An interactive activation model of context effects in letter perception. II. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. Psychological Review, 89, 60–94.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Schneider, W., & Fisk, A. D. (1982). Degree of consistent training: Improvements in search performance and automatic process development. Perception and Psychophysics, 31, 160–168.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing. I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 1–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. M. (1985). Categorization (restructuring) and automatization: Two separable factors. Psychological Review, 92, 424–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Shiffrin, R. M., & Dumais, S. T. (1981). The development of automatism. In J. R. Anderson (Ed.), Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition (pp. 111–140). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  51. Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing. II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Shiffrin, R. M., Dumais, S. T., & Schneider, W. (1980). Characteristics of automatism. In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII (pp. 223–238). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  53. Smith, E. E., & Medin, D. L. (1981) Categories and concepts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Sternberg, S. (1966). High-speed scanning in human memory. Science, 153, 652–654.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. Townsend, J. T., & Ashby, F. G. (1983). Stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Townsend, J. T., & Colonius, H. (1997). Parallel processing response times and experimental determination of the stopping rule. Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 41, 392–397.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. Treisman, A., & Gormican, S. (1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological Review, 95, 15–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. Treisman, A., & Sato, S. (1990). Conjunction search revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16, 459–478.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. Treisman, A., Vieira, A., & Hayes, A. (1992). Automaticity and preattentive processing. American Journal of Psychology, 105, 341–362.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. Von Mühlenen, A., Müller, H. J., & Müller, D. (2003). Sit-and-wait strategies in dynamic visual search. Psychological Science, 14, 309–314.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Ward, R., & McClelland, J. L. (1989). Conjunctive search for one and two identical targets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 664–672.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. Ward, R., Duncan, J., & Shapiro, K. (1996). The slow time-course of visual attention. Cognitive Psychology, 30, 79–109.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 202–238.Google Scholar
  65. Wolfe, J. M. (1998). What can 1 million trials tell us about visual search? Psychological Science, 9, 33–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Wolfe, J. M., Cave, K. R., & Franzel, S. L. (1989). Guided search: An alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15, 419–433.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Zenger, B., & Fahle, M. (1997). Missed targets are more frequent than false alarms: A model for error rates in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 1783–1791.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Département de Psychologie Université de MontréalMontréalCanada

Personalised recommendations