Advertisement

Psychological Research

, Volume 73, Issue 2, pp 198–211 | Cite as

Dimensional weighting of primary and secondary target-defining dimensions in visual search for singleton conjunction targets

  • Ralph Weidner
  • Hermann J. Müller
Original Article

Abstract

Two experiments investigated dimension-based attentional processing in a complex singleton conjunction search task. In Experiment 1, observers had to discern the presence of a singleton target defined by a conjunction of size (fixed primary dimension) with either color or motion direction (secondary dimension). Similar to findings in singleton feature search, changes (vs. repetitions) of the secondary dimension across trials resulted in reaction time (RT) costs—which were, however, increased by a factor of 3–5 compared to singleton feature search. In Experiment 2, the coding of search-critical, dimensional saliency signals was investigated by additionally presenting targets redundantly defined in both secondary dimensions, with redundant-target signals being either spatially coincident or separate (i.e., one vs. two target items). Redundant-target RTs significantly violated Miller’s (Cognit Psychol 14:247–279, 1982) race model inequality only when redundant signals were spatially coincident (i.e., bound to a single object), indicating coactive processing of target information in the two secondary dimensions. These findings suggest that the coding and combining of signals from different visual dimensions operates in parallel. Increased change costs in singleton conjunction search are likely to reflect a reduced amount of weight available for processing the secondary target-defining dimensions, due to a large amount of weight being bound by the primary dimension.

Keywords

Target Item Display Size Color Target Search Display Conjunction Search 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by DFG grants FOR480 and EC142 (Excellence Cluster ‘CoTeSys’).

References

  1. Allport, D. A. (1971). Parallel encoding within and between elementary stimulus dimensions. Perception & Psychophysics, 10, 104–108.Google Scholar
  2. Baylis, G. C., & Driver, J. (1993). Visual attention and objects: Evidence for hierarchical coding of location. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 19, 451–470.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cave, K. R., & Wolfe, J. M. (1990). Modeling the role of parallel processing in visual search. Cognitive Psychology, 22(2), 225–271.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Chun, M. M., & Wolfe, J. M. (1996). Just say no: How are visual searches terminated when there is no target present? Cognitive Psychology, 30(1), 39–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duncan, J. (1984). Selective attention and the organization of visual information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 113, 501–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Egeth, H. E., Virzi, R. A., & Garbart, H. (1984). Searching for conjunctively defined targets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 10, 32–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eriksen, C. W. (1988). A source of error in attempts to distinguish coactivation from separate activation in the perception of redundant targets. Perception & Psychophysics, 44, 191–193.Google Scholar
  8. Eriksen, C. W., & Hoffman, J. E. (1973). The extent of processing of noise elements during selective encoding fromvisual displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 1, 155–160.Google Scholar
  9. Found, A., & Müller, H. J. (1996). Searching for unknown feature targets on more than one dimension: Investigating a “dimension-weighting” account. Perception & Psychophysics, 58, 88–101.Google Scholar
  10. Grossberg, S., Mingolla, E., & Ross, W. D. (1994). A neural theory of attentive visual search: Interactions of boundary, surface, spatial, and object representations. Psycholological Review, 101, 470–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Itti, L., & Koch, C. (2000). A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts of visual attention. Vision Research, 40(10–12), 1489–1506.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kahneman, D., & Treisman, A. (1984). Changing views of attention and automaticity. In R. Parasuraman & D. R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of Attention (pp. 29–61). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  13. Kaptein, N. A., Theeuwes, J., & van der Heijden, A. (1995). Search for a conjunctively defined target can be selectively limited to a color-defined subset of elements. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 21(5), 1053–1069.Google Scholar
  14. Koch, C., & Ullman, S. (1985). Shifts in selective visual attention: Towards the underlying neural circuitry. Human Neurobiology, 4(4), 219–227.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Krummenacher, J., Müller, H. J., & Heller, D. (2001). Visual search for dimensionally redundant pop-out targets: Evidence for parallel-coactive processing of dimensions. Perception & Psychophysics, 63, 901–917.Google Scholar
  16. Krummenacher, J., Müller, H. J., & Heller, D. (2002). Visual search for dimensionally redundant pop-out targets: Parallel-coactive processing of dimensions is location specific. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 1303–1322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lavie, N. (2005). Distracted and confused?: Selective attention under load. Trends in Cognitive Science, 9, 75–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McLeod, P., Driver, J., & Crisp, J. (1988). Visual search for a conjunction of movement and form is parallel. Nature, 332, 154–155.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Miller, J. (1982). Divided attention: Evidence for co-activation with redundant signals. Cognitive Psychology, 14, 247–279.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Müller, H. J., & Rabbitt, P. M. A. (1989). Reflexive and voluntary orienting of visual attention: Time course of activation and resistance to interruption. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 15(2), 315–330.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Müller, H. J., Heller, D., & Ziegler, J. (1995). Visual search for singleton feature targets within and across feature dimensions. Perception & Psychophysics, 57, 1–17.Google Scholar
  22. Müller, H. J., Reimann, B., & Krummenacher, J. (2003). Visual search for singleton feature targets across dimensions: Stimulus-and expectancy-driven effects in dimensional weighting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 29(5), 1021–1035.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Nakayama, K., & Silverman, G. H. (1986). Serial and parallel processing of visual feature conjunctions. Nature, 320, 264–265.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Pollmann, S., Weidner, R., Müller, H. J., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2000). A fronto-posterior network involved in visual dimension changes. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 480–494.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ramnani, N., & Owen, A. M. (2004). Anterior prefrontal cortex: Insights into function from anatomy and neuroimaging. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5(3), 184–194.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Treisman, A. (1988). Features and objects: The fourteenth Bartlett memorial lecture. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology A, 40(2), 201–237.Google Scholar
  28. Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Treisman, A., & Gormican, S. (1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries. Psychological Review, 95(1), 15–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Treisman, A., & Sato, S. (1990). Conjunction search revisited. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 16(3), 459–478.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Wei, P., Lü, J., Müller, H. J., & Zhou, X. (2008). Searching for two feature singletons in the visual scene: The localized attentional interference effect. Experimental Brain Research, 185, 175–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Weidner, R., Pollmann, S., Müller, H. J., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2002). Top-down controlled visual dimension weighting: An event-related fMRI study. Cerebral Cortex, 12, 318–328.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wolfe, J. (1998). Visual search. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention (pp. 13–74). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
  34. Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 202–238.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Neurosciences and Medicine (INM 3) - Cognitive NeurologyResearch Centre JülichJülichGermany
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of MunichMunichGermany
  3. 3.School of Psychology, Birckbeck CollegeUniversity of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations