Abstract
Human sensitivity to correlational structure between nontargets and likelihood of target presence in a visual letter-search task were studied in two experiments. In each of these experiments, the performance of subjects for whom the nontarget information was altered in the final trial block was compared with the performance of subjects for whom the nontarget information did not change. When stimulus strings were presented individually on a computer screen and subjects were required to make a yes-no decision about target presence (Experiment 1), the change in nontarget structure resulted in increased reaction times for target-absent trials. When subjects searched simultaneously for three possible targets (Experiment 2), the change in nontarget structure produced increased error rates and increased reaction times for both target-absent and target-present trials. Correlations between the amount of predictive information in individual stimulus strings and reaction times also showed that both switching and nonswitching subjects were sensitive to the nontarget context. However, neither self-reports of strategy nor postexperiment choices between context-consistent and -inconsistent letter strings indicated any explicit knowledge of the predictive information in the nontarget stimuli. Subjects can thus acquire and benefit from, apparently without awareness, information about subtle correlational structure in nontarget elements in simple visual search.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Berry, D., &Dienes, Z. (1993).Implicit learning: Theoretical and empirical issues. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Carlson, K. A., &Flowers, J. H. (1996). Intentional versus unintentional use of contingencies between perceptual events.Perception & Psychophysics,58, 460–470.
Cohen, A., &Shoup, R. (1997). Perceptual dimensional constraints on response selection processes.Cognitive Psychology,32, 128–181.
Ericsson, K. A., &Simon, H. A. (1980). Verbal reports as data.Psychological Review,87, 215–251.
Eriksen, B. A., &Eriksen, C. W. (1974). Effects of noise letters upon the identification of a target letter in a nonsearch task.Perception & Psychophysics,16, 143–149.
Eriksen, C. W., &St. James, J. D. (1986). Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model.Perception & Psychophysics,40, 225–240.
Flowers, J. H.. &Dutch, S. (1976). The use of visual and name codes in scanning and classifying colors.Memory & Cognition,4, 384–390.
Hearst, E. (1991). The psychology of nothingness.American Scientist,79, 442–443.
Miller, J. (1987). Priming is not necessary for selective-attention failures: Semantic effects of unattended, unprimed letters.Perception & Psychophysics,41, 419–434.
Reber, A. S. (1993).Implicit learning and tacit knowledge: An essay on the cognitive unconscious. New York: Oxford University Press.
Reber, A. S., &Millward, R. B. (1968). Event observation in probability learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology,11, 317–327.
Treisman, A. M., &Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention.Cognitive Psychology,12, 97–136.
Yantis, S., &Johnston.J. C. (1990). On the locus of visual selection? Evidence from focused attention tasks.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,16, 135–149.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Flowers, J.H., Smith, K.L. What is learned about nontarget items in simple visual search?. Perception & Psychophysics 60, 696–704 (1998). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206056
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206056