Abstract
Visual search in a conjunction task can be facilitated if half the distractor items are previewed prior to the other half of the distractors and the target item. Here, we investigate the nature of this preview by using atop-up procedure, which presents an initial preview followed by a secondary preview after a period of time (the offset period). In Experiment 1, we demonstrate that increasing the time of the offset period decreases search efficiency. If the offset period is increased to 2 sec, the previewed items are searched to a greater extent than when the offset period is 450 msec. This holds even when the old items remain in the same positions across presentations and when they differ in color from new search stimuli. However, when the offset intervals are reduced, the preview can be discounted from search even when the old items change locations between exposures (Experiment 2) and when they are not distinguished from search displays by their color (Experiment 3). The last result occurs only as long as the preview items can be grouped in terms of form. When the preview stimuli are heterogeneous, they are no longer discounted from search if their locations change across the offset period (Experiment 4). We interpret the data in terms of object-based priming, which enables the repeated form of the old distractors to be filtered more easily from search.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox.Spatial Vision,10, 443–446.
Braithwaite, J. J., &Humphreys, G. W. (2003). Inhibition and anticipation in visual search: Evidence from effects of color foreknowledge on preview search.Perception & Psychophysics,65, 213–237.
Braithwaite, J. J., Humphreys, G. W., Watson, D. G., &Hulleman, J. (2005). Revisiting preview search at isoluminance: New onsets are not necessary for the preview advantage.Perception & Psychophysics,67, 1214–1228.
Danziger, S., Kingstone, A., & Snyder, J. J. (1998). Inhibition of return to successively stimulated locations in a sequential visual search paradigm.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 24, 1467–1475.
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 period: Evidence against visual marking.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 282–288.
Fox, E. (1995). Negative priming from ignored distractors in visual selection: A review.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,2, 145–173.
Humphreys, G. W., Kyllingsbaek, S., Watson, D. G., Olivers, C. N. L., Law, I., &Paulson, O. (2004). Parieto-occipital areas involved in efficient filtering in search: A time course analysis of visual marking using behavioural and functional imaging procedures.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,57A, 610–635.
Humphreys, G. W., Watson, D. G., &Jolicoeur, P. (2002). Fractionating visual marking: Dual-task decomposition of the marking state by timing and modality.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,28, 640–660.
Jiang, Y., Chun, M. M., &Marks, L. E. (2002). Visual marking: Selective attention to asynchronous temporal groups.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,28, 717–750.
Klein, R. M. (2000). Inhibition of return.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,4, 138–147.
Kunar, M. A., Humphreys, G. W., &Smith, K. J. (2003). History matters: The preview benefit in search is not onset capture.Psychological Science,14, 181–185.
Kunar, M. A., Humphreys, G. W., Smith, K. J., &Hulleman, J. (2003). What is “marked” in visual marking? Evidence for effects of configuration in preview search.Perception & Psychophysics,65, 982–996.
Kunar, M. A., Humphreys, G. W., Smith, K. J., &Watson, D. G. (2003). When a reappearance is old news: Visual marking survives occlusion.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,29, 185–198.
Neill, W. T., &Valdes, L. A. (1992). Persistence of negative priming: Steady state or decay?Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,18, 565–576.
Olivers, C. N. L., &Humphreys, G. W. (2002). Visual marking under attentional blink conditions: More evidence for top-down limited capacity inhibition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,28, 22–42.
Olivers, C. N. L., Humphreys, G. W., Heinke, D., &Cooper, A. C. G. (2002). Prioritization in visual search: Visual marking is not dependent on a mnemonic search.Perception & Psychophysics,64, 540–560.
Olivers, C. N. L., Watson, D. G., &Humphreys, G. W. (1999). Visual marking of locations and feature maps: Evidence from within-dimension defined conjunctions.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,52A, 679–715.
Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies.Spatial Vision,10, 437–442.
Pratt, J., &Abrams, R. A. (1995). Inhibition of return to successively cued spatial locations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 1343–1353.
Theeuwes, J., Kramer, A. F., &Atchley, P. (1998). Visual marking of old objects.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,5, 130–134.
Tipper, S. P., Driver, J., & Weaver, B. (1991). Object-centred inhibition of return of visual attention.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,43A, 289–298.
Tipper, S. P., Weaver, B., Cameron, S., Brehaut, J., &Bastedo, J. (1991). Inhibitory mechanisms of attention in identification and localization tasks: Time course and disruption.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,17, 681–692.
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. (2000). Visual marking: Evidence for inhibition using a probe-dot detection paradigm.Perception & Psychophysics,62, 471–481.
Yantis, S., &Gibson, B. (1994). Object continuity in apparent motion and attention.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,48, 182–204.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by an ESRC grant to M.A.K. and by an MRC grant to G.W.H.
Note-This article was accepted by the previous editorial team, when Colin M. MacLeod was Editor.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Kunar, M.A., Humphreys, G.W. Object-based inhibitory priming in preview search: Evidence from the “top-up” procedure. Memory & Cognition 34, 459–474 (2006). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193571
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193571