Abstract
Visual search based on a conjunction of two features typically elicits reaction times that increase linearly as a function of the number of distractors, whereas search based on a single feature is essentially unaffected by set size. These and related findings have often been interpreted as evidence of a serial search stage that follows a parallel search stage. However, a wide range of studies has been showing a form of blending of these two processes. For example, when a spoken instruction identifies the conjunction target concurrently with the visual display, the effect of set size is significantly reduced, suggesting that incremental linguistic processing of the first feature adjective and then the second feature adjective may facilitate something approximating a parallel extraction of objects during search for the target. Here, we extend these results to a variety of experimental designs. First, we replicate the result with a mixed-trials design (ruling out potential strategies associated with the blocked design of the original study). Second, in a mixed-trials experiment, the order of adjective types in the spoken query varies randomly across conditions. In a third experiment, we extend the effect to a triple-conjunction search task. A fourth (control) experiment demonstrates that these effects are not due to an efficient odd-one-out search that ignores the linguistic input. This series of experiments, along with attractornetwork simulations of the phenomena, provide further evidence toward understanding linguistically mediated influences in real-time visual search processing.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allopenna, P. D., Magnuson, J. S., &Tanenhaus, M. K. (1998). Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models.Journal of Memory & Language,38, 419–439.
Altmann, G. T. M., &Kamide, Y. (1999). Incremental interpretation at verbs: Restricting the domain of subsequent reference.Cognition,73, 247–264.
Arnfield, S., Roach, P., Setter, J., Greasley, P., &Horton, D. (1995). Emotional stress and speech tempo variation. In I. Trancoso & R. Moore (Eds.),Proceedings of the ESCA-NATO Tutorial and Research Workshop on Speech Under Stress (pp. 13–15). Lisbon: ISCA Archive.
Boucart, M., &Humphreys, G. W. (1997). Integration of physical and semantic information in object processing.Perception,26, 1197–1209.
Cavanagh, P. (1987). Reconstructing the third dimension: Interactions between color, texture, motion, binocular disparity and shape.Computer Vision, Graphics, & Image Processing,37, 171–195.
Chambers, C. G., Magnuson, J. S., &Tanenhaus, M. K. (2004). Actions and affordances in syntactic ambiguity resolution.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,30, 687–696.
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.
Desimone, R., &Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention.Annual Review of Neuroscience,18, 193–222.
Donk, M., &Theeuwes, J. (2001). Visual marking beside the mark: Prioritizing selection by abrupt onsets.Perception & Psychophysics,63, 891–900.
Donk, M., &Verburg, R. C. (2004). Prioritizing new elements with a brief preview peried: Evidence against visual marking.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 282–288.
Dosher, B. A., Han, S., &Lu, Z. L. (2004). Time course of asymmetric visual search.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,30, 3–27.
Duncan, J., &Humphreys, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity.Psychological Review,96, 433–458.
Eberhard, K. M., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Sedivy, J. C., &Tanenhaus, M. K. (1995). Eye movements as a window into real-time spoken language comprehension in natural contexts.Journal of Psycholinguistic Research,24, 409–436.
Eckstein, M. P. (1998). The lower visual search efficiency for conjunctions is due to noise and not serial attentional processing.Psychological Science,9, 111–118.
Egeth, H. E., Virzi, R. A., &Garbart, H. (1984). Searching for conjunctively defined targets.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 32–39.
Gibson, B. S., Eberhard, K. M., &Bryant, T. A. (2005). Linguistically mediated visual search: The critical role of speech rate.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,12, 276–281.
Haslam, N., Porter, M., &Rothschild, L. (2001). Visual search: Efficiency continuum or distinct processes?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 742–746.
Horowitz, T. S., &Wolfe, J. M. (2003). Memory for rejected distractors in visual search?Visual Cognition,10, 257–298.
Kaptein, N. A., Theeuwes, J., &van der Heijden, A. H. C. (1995). Search for a conjunctively defined target can be selectively limited to a color-defined subset of elements.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 1053–1069.
Livingstone, M., &Hubel, D. (1988). Segregation of form, color, movement, and depth: Anatomy, physiology, and perception.Science,240, 740–749.
Magnuson, J. S., Tanenhaus, M. K., Aslin, R. N., &Dahan, D. (2003). The microstructure of spoken word recognition: Studies with artificial lexicons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,132, 202–227.
McClelland, J. (1979). On the time relations of mental processes: An examination of systems of processes in cascade.Psychological Review,86, 287–330.
McElree, B., &Carrasco, M. (1999). The temporal dynamics of visual search: Evidence for parallel processing in feature and conjunction searches.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 1517–1537.
Müller, H. J., Heller, D., &Ziegler, J. (1995). Visual search for singleton feature targets within and across feature dimensions.Perception & Psychophysics,57, 1–17.
Nakayama, K., &Joseph, J. S. (1998). Attention, pattern recognition, and pop-out in visual search. In R. Parasuraman (Ed.),The attentive brain (pp. 279–298). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Olds, E. S., Cowan, W. B., &Jolicoeur, P. (2000a). Partial orientation pop-out helps difficult search for orientation.Perception & Psychophysics,62, 1341–1347.
Olds, E. S., Cowan, W. B., &Jolicoeur, P. (2000b). The time-course of pop-out search.Visual Research,40, 891–912.
Olds, E. S., &Fockler, K. A. (2004). Does previewing one stimulus feature help conjunction search?Perception,33, 195–216.
Palmer, J., Verghese, P., &Pavel, M. (2000). The psychophysics of visual search.Vision Research,40, 1227–1268.
Posner, M. I., Snyder, C. R. R., &Davidson, B. J. (1980). Attention and the detection of signals.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,109, 160–174.
Quinlan, P. T., &Humphreys, G. W. (1987). 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.
Reynolds, J. H., &Desimone, R. (2001). Neural mechanisms of attentional selection. In J. Braun & C. Koch (Eds.),Visual attention and cortical circuits (pp. 121–135). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Roy, D., &Mukherjee, N. (2005). Toward situated speech understanding: Visual context priming of language models.Computer Speech & Language,19, 227–248.
Sagi, D., &Julesz, B. (1984). Detection versus discrimination of visual orientation.Perception,13, 619–628.
Spivey, M. J., &Dale, R. (2004). On the continuity of mind: Toward a dynamical account of cognition. In B. H. Ross (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 45, pp. 87–142). San Diego: Elsevier, Academic Press.
Spivey, M. J., Grosjean, M., &Knoblich, G. (2005). Continuous attraction toward phonological competitors.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,102, 10393–10398.
Spivey, M. J., Tanenhaus, M. K., Eberhard, K. M., &Sedivy, J. C. (2002). Eye movements and spoken language comprehension: Effects of visual context on syntactic ambiguity resolution.Cognitive Psychology,45, 447–481.
Spivey, M. J., Tyler, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., &Tanenhaus, M. K. (2001). Linguistically mediated visual search.Psychological Science,12, 282–286.
Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Tanenhaus, M. K., Eberhard, K. M., &Sedivy, J. C. (1998). Integration of visuospatial and linguistic information in real time and real space. In P. Olivier & K.-P. Gapp (Eds.),Representation and processing of spatial expressions (pp. 201–214). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Spratling, M. W., &Johnson, M. H. (2004). A feedback model of visual attention.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,16, 219–237.
Tanenhaus, M. K., Spivey-Knowlton, M. J., Eberhard, K. M., &Sedivy, J. C. (1995). Integration of visual and linguistic information in spoken language comprehension.Science,268, 1632–1634.
Townsend, J. T., &Ashby, F. G. (1983).Stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Treisman, A. (1988). Features and objects: The Fourteenth Bartlett Memorial Lecture.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,40A, 201–237.
Treisman, A., &Gelade, G. (1980). A feature integration theory of attention.Cognitive Psychology,12, 97–136.
Treisman, A., &Sato, S. (1990). Conjunction search revisited.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,16, 459–478.
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. (2002). Visual marking and visual change.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,28, 379–395.
Wolfe, J. M. (1992). “Effortless” texture segmentation and “parallel” visual search arenot the same thing.Vision Research,32, 757–763.
Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0: A revised mode of visual search.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,1, 202–238.
Wolfe, J. M. (1998). What can 1 million trials tell us about visual search?Psychological Science,9, 33–39.
Wolfe, J. M., Butcher, S. J., Lee, C., &Hyle, M. (2003). Changing your mind: On the contributions of top-down and bottom-up guidance in visual search for feature singletons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,29, 483–502.
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 & Performance,15, 419–433.
Woodman, G. F., &Luck, S. J. (2003). Serial deployment of attention during visual search.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,29, 121–138.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
This research was supported by NIMH Grant R01-63961.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Reali, F., Spivey, M.J., Tyler, M.J. et al. Inefficient conjunction search made efficient by concurrent spoken delivery of target identity. Perception & Psychophysics 68, 959–974 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193358
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193358