Abstract
The relation between attention demand and the number of items in the array (array size) was investigated by engaging subjects in a primary search task and measuring spare capacity at different points in time, with a secondary tone task that occurred randomly on half of the trials. The major variables in both tasks were array size 14, 8, or 12 letters and stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA: −400, −200, 0, 200, 400, and 600 msec. Subjects were able to perform the tasks quite independently, and me, st of the interference that resulted from nonindependence appeared in tone-task performance. Theamount of interference (i.e., maximum tone reaction time) was independent of array size, but theduration of interference (li.e., the number of SOAs at which tone reaction time was elevated) increased with array size. The findings were interpreted as supporting unlimited-capacity models of visual search performance.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Atkinson, R. C., Holmgren, J. E., &Juola, J. F. Processing time as influenced by the number of elements in a visual display.Perception & Psychophysics, 1969,6, 321–326.
Comstock, E. M. Processing capacity in a letter-match task.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973,100, 63–72.
Comstock, E. M.Limited-capacity central attention mechanisms. Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Massachusetts, 1975.
Ells, J. G. Analysis of temporal and attentional aspects of movement control.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1973,99, 10–21.
Estes, W. K. Interactions of signal and background variables in visual search.Perception & Psychophysics, 1972,12, 278–286.
Gardner, G. T. Evidence for independent channels in tachistoscopic perception.Cognitive Psychology, 1973,4, 130–155.
Kahneman, D.Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall, 1973.
Kantowitz, B. H. The double stimulation paradigm. In B. H. Kantowitz (Ed.),Human information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition. Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1974.
Klapp, S. T. Short-term memory as a response preparation state.Memory & Cognition, 1976,4, 721–729.
Logan, G. D. Converging evidence for automatic perceptual processing in visual search.Canadian Journal of Psychology, 1976,30, 193–200.
Logan, G. D. Attention in character-classification tasks: Evidence for the automaticity of component stages.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 1978,107, 32–63.
Millar, K. Processing capacity requirements of stimulus encoding.Acta Psychologica, 1975,39, 393–410.
Newell, A. Production systems: Models of control structures. In W. G. Chase (Ed.),Visual information processing. New York: Academic Press, 1973.
Nickerson, R. S. Binary classification reaction time: A review of some studies of human information-processing capabilities.Psychonomic Monograph Supplements, 1972,4, 275–318
Posner, M. I., &Boies, S. J. Components of attention.Psychological Review, 1971,78, 391–408.
Posner, M. I., &Klein, R. On the functions of consciousness. In S. Kornblum (Ed.),Attention and performance IV. New York: Academic Press, 1973.
Posner, M. I., &Snyder, C. R. R. Attention and cognitive control. In R. Solso (Ed.),Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium. Potomac, Md: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1975.
Proctor, R. W., &Fisicaro, S. A. Time, capacity, and selection between perceptual attributes.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1977,3, 337–348.
Rumelhart, D. E. A multicomponent theory of the perception of briefly exposed visual displays.Journal of Mathematical Psychology, 1970,7, 191–218.
Shiffrin, R. M., &Geisler, W. S. Visual recognition in a theory of information processing. In R. L. Solso (Ed.),Contemporary issues in cognitive psychology: The Loyola symposium. New York: Winston, 1973. Pp. 53–101.
Shiffrin, R. M., &Schneider, W. Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory.Psychological Review, 1977,84, 127–190.
Shulman, H. G., &Fisher, R. P. Expected value as a determinant of the distribution of attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1972,93, 343–348.
Shwarts, S. P. Capacity limitations in human information processing.Memory & Cognition, 1976,4, 763–768.
Smith, E. E., &Spoehr, K. T. The perception of printed English: A theoretical perspective. In B. H. Kantowitz (Ed.),Human information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition. Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1974.
Sternberg, S. Memory scanning: New findings and current controversies.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1975,27, 1–32.
Taylor, D. A. Stage analysis of reaction time.Psychological Bulletin, 1976,83, 161–191.
Townsend, J. T. Issues and models concerning the processing of a finite number of inputs. In B. H. Kantowitz (Ed.),Human information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition. Hillsdale, N.J: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1974.
Vaughan, G. M., &Corballis, M. C. Beyond tests of significance: Estimating strength of effects in selected ANOVA designs.Psychological Bulletin, 1969,72, 204–213.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research was supported in part by Grant AO 127 from the National Research Council of Canada to Albert S. Bregman at McGill University.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Logan, G.D. Attention demands of visual search. Memory & Cognition 6, 446–453 (1978). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197478
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197478