Perception & Psychophysics

, Volume 46, Issue 5, pp 476–482 | Cite as

Search performance without eye movements

  • Raymond Klein
  • Mark Farrell


Visual search performance (with sets chosen to elicit both serial and parallel search patterns) under two conditions that precluded saccades was compared to the typical situation in which visual inspection of the array is possible. In one condition, the display duration was so brief that any saccades that were executed would be too late to bring the targeted portion of the array into the fovea. In the other, the display remained present until the subject’s response, but eye position was monitored and trials with shifts in fixation were excluded from analysis. The latter condition produced search latencies that were nearly identical to those with free inspection. Brief exposure, in contrast, did not produce the pattern typical of serial search, presumably because of strategies induced to deal with the rapid decay of the visual array. It is concluded that saccadic eye movements play little role in the patterns of performance used to infer serial and parallel search, and that brief exposure is not a satisfactory technique for exploring the role of saccadic eye movements in visual search.


  1. Broadbent, D. E. (1987). Simple models for experimentable situations. In P. E. Morris (Ed.),Modelling cognition. London; Wiley.Google Scholar
  2. Klein, R. M. (1978). Chronometrie analysis of saccadic eye movements: Reflexive and cognitive control. In D. Landers & R. Christina (Eds.),The psychology of motor behavior and sport: 1977. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Publishers.Google Scholar
  3. Klein, R. M. (1982). Pattems of perceived similarity cannot be generalized from long to short exposure durations and vice versa.Perception & Psychophysics,32, 15–18.Google Scholar
  4. Klein, R. M. (1988). Inhibitory tagging system facilitates visual search.Nature,334, 430–431.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Pashler, H. (1987). Detecting conjunctions of color and form: Reassessing the serial search hypothesis.Perception & Psychophysics,41, 191–201.Google Scholar
  6. Ratcliff, R. (1978). A theory of memory retrieval.Psychological Review,85, 59–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Sternberg, S. (1967). Two operations in character recognition: Some evidence from reaction-time measurements.Perception & Psychophysics,2, 45–53.Google Scholar
  8. Townsend, J. T., &Ashby, F. G (1983).Stochastic modelling of elementary psychological processes. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Treisman, A. (1986). Features and objects in perception.Scientific American,225, No. 11, 114–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Treisman, A., &Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention.Cognitive Psychology,12, 97–136.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Treisman, A., &Gormican, S. (1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries.Psychological Review,95, 15–48.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Ward, R., &McClelland, J. L. (1989). Conjunctive search for one and two identical targets.Journal of Experimental Psychology, Human Perception & Performance,15, 664–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Raymond Klein
    • 1
  • Mark Farrell
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyDalhousie UniversityHalifax

Personalised recommendations