Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T07:03:53.683Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

How functional are functional viewing fields?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2017

Árni Kristjánsson ,
Andrey Chetverikov  and
Manje Brinkhuis
Árni Kristjánsson
Affiliation:
Faculty of Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, 101, Reykjavík, Iceland. [email protected]@[email protected]
Andrey Chetverikov
Affiliation:
Faculty of Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, 101, Reykjavík, Iceland. [email protected]@[email protected]
Manje Brinkhuis
Affiliation:
Faculty of Psychology, School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, 101, Reykjavík, Iceland. [email protected]@[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Hulleman & Olivers' (H&O's) proposal is a refreshing addition to the visual search literature. Although we like their proposal that fixations, not individual items should be considered a fundamental unit in visual search, we point out some unresolved problems that their account will have to solve. Additionally, we consider predictions that can be made from the account, in particular in relation to priming of visual search, finding that the account generates interesting testable predictions.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e143
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anton-Erxleben, K. & Carrasco, M. (2013) Attentional enhancement of spatial resolution: Linking behavioural and neurophysiological evidence. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 14(3):188–200.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ásgeirsson, Á. G. & Kristjánsson, Á. (2011) Episodic retrieval and feature facilitation in intertrial priming of visual search. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics 73:1350–60.Google Scholar
Becker, S. I. & Ansorge, U. (2013) Higher set sizes in pop-out search displays do not eliminate priming or enhance target selection. Vision Research 81:18–28. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2013.01.009.Google Scholar
Belopolsky, A. V., Zwaan, L., Theeuwes, J. & Kramer, A. F. (2007) The size of an attentional window modulates attentional capture by color singletons. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 14(5):934–38. Available at: http://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194124.Google Scholar
Brascamp, J. W., Pels, E. & Kristjánsson, Á. (2011) Priming of pop-out on multiple time scales during visual search. Vision Research 51:1972–78.Google Scholar
Carrasco, M., Talgar, C. P. & Cameron, E. L. (2001) Characterizing visual performance fields: Effects of transient covert attention, spatial frequency, eccentricity, task and set size. Spatial Vision 15(1):61–75. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1163/15685680152692015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carrasco, M. & Yeshurun, Y. (1998) The contribution of covert attention to the set-size and eccentricity effects in visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 24(2):673–92. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.24.2.673.Google Scholar
Cavanagh, P. & Alvarez, G. A. (2005) Tracking multiple targets with multifocal attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 9(7):349–54. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2005.05.009.Google Scholar
Eckstein, M. P. (1998) The lower visual search efficiency for conjunctions is due to noise and not serial attentional processing. Psychological Science 9:111–18.Google Scholar
Foley, J. M. & Schwarz, W. (1998) Spatial attention: Effect of position uncertainty and number of distractor patterns on the threshold-versus-contrast function for contrast discrimination. Journal of the Optical Society of America A 15(5):1036. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1364/JOSAA.15.001036.Google Scholar
Fuggetta, G., Lanfranchi, S. & Campana, G. (2009) Attention has memory: Priming for the size of the attentional focus. Spatial Vision 22(2):147–59.Google Scholar
Jefferies, L. N., Enns, J. T. & Di Lollo, V. (2014) The flexible focus: Whether spatial attention is unitary or divided depends on observer goals. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 40(2):465–70. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1037/a0034734.Google ScholarPubMed
Kerzel, D., Born, S. & Schönhammer, J. (2012) Perceptual grouping allows for attention to cover noncontiguous locations and suppress capture from nearby locations. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 38(6):1362–70. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1037/a0027780.Google Scholar
Kristjánsson, Á. (2015) Reconsidering visual search. i-Perception 6(6):1–14.Google Scholar
Kristjánsson, Á. & Campana, G. (2010) Where perception meets memory: A review of priming in visual search. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics 72:5–18.Google Scholar
Kristjánsson, Á. & Driver, J. (2008) Priming in visual search: Separating the effects of target repetition, distractor repetition and role-reversal. Vision Research 48(10):1217–32. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2008.02.007.Google Scholar
Kruijne, W., Brascamp, J. W., Kristjánsson, Á. & Meeter, M. (2015) Can a single short-term mechanism account for priming of pop-out? Vision Research 115:17–22.Google Scholar
Kruijne, W. & Meeter, M. (2015) The long and the short of priming in visual search. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics 77(5):1558–73.Google Scholar
Lavie, N., Hirst, A., De Fockert, J. W. & Viding, E. (2004) Load theory of selective attention and cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 133(3):339–51.Google Scholar
Maljkovic, V. & Nakayama, K. (1994) Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features. Memory and Cognition 22(6):657–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martini, P. (2010) System identification in priming of pop-out. Vision Research 50:2110–15.Google Scholar
Nakayama, K. & Martini, P. (2011) Situating visual search. Vision Research 51:1526–37. doi: 10.1016/j.visres.2010.09.003.Google Scholar
Palmer, J., Ames, C. T. & Lindsey, D. T. (1993) Measuring the effect of attention on simple visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception and Performance 19(1):108–30. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.19.1.108.Google Scholar
Vatterott, D. B. & Vecera, S. P. (2015) The attentional window configures to object and surface boundaries. Visual Cognition 23(5):561–76. Available at: http://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2015.1054454.Google Scholar
Wang, D., Kristjánsson, Á. & Nakayama, K. (2005) Efficient visual search without top-down or bottom-up guidance. Perception and Psychophysics 67:239–53.Google Scholar