Previous issue (2019. Vol. 12, no. 3)
Included in Web of Science СС (ESCI)
Stimuli similarity in subsequent search misses 492
, Research Assistant, Laboratory for Cognitive Psychology of Digital Interfaces User, Moscow, Russia, email@example.comGorbunova E.S.
, PhD in Psychology, Lecturer, Chair of General and Experimental Psychology, Department of Psychology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia, firstname.lastname@example.org
The role of targets categorical similarity in subsequent search misses (SSM) effect, which assumes second target omission after the first target was found in visual search task, was observed. Participant’s task was to search for the targets (even or odd digits) among distracters (odd or ever digits, respectively). On each trial, it could be two, one or no targets. In dual target condition, the targets could be equal digits or different. 22 participants were tested, mean age — 18.73. Accuracy at detecting the second target after the first one was found was compared. Targets similarity had the significant effect on second target detection performance, F (1, 30) = 9.69, p = 0.002, ηp2 = 0.316, and on the search time, F (1, 31) = 28.29, p < 0.000, ηp2 = 0.574. In two dissimilar targets condition the participants missed the second target more often and found it slowly as compared to two similar targets condition. The results are discussed in the context perceptual set and resource depletion theories.
Adamo S.H., Cain M.S., Mitroff S.R. Self-Induced
Attentional Blink: A Cause of Errors in Multiple- Target Search.
Psychological Science, 2013, vol. 24, no. 12, pp. 2569—2574. doi:
Adamo S. H., Cain M. S., Mitroff S. R. Targets need their
own personal space: effects of clutter on multiple-target search accuracy.
Perception, 2015, vol. 44, no. 10, pp. 1203—1214. doi:
Berbaum K.S., Franken Jr. E.A., Dorfman D.D., Rooholamini
S.A., Coffman C.E., Cornell S.H., Cragg A.H., Galvin J.R., Honda H., Kao S.C.,
et al. Time course of satisfaction of search. Investigative Radiology,
1991, vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 640—648.
Biggs A. T., Adamo S. H., Dowd E. W., Mitroff S. R.
Examining perceptual and conceptual set biases in multiple-target visual
search. Attention, Perception, Psychophysics, 2015, vol. 77, no. 3, pp.
844—855. doi: 10.3758/s13414-014-0822-0
Cain M.S., Mitroff S.R. Memory for found targets
interferes with subsequent performance in multiple-target visual search. The
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 2013,
vol. 39, no. 5, pp. 1398—1408. doi: 10.1037/a0030726
Cain M.S., Biggs A.T., Darling E.F., Mitroff S.R. A little
bit of history repeating: Splitting up multiple-target visual searches
decreases second-target miss errors. Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Applied, 2014, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 112—125. doi: 10.1037/xap0000014
Duncan J., Humphreys G.W. Visual search and stimulus
similarity. Psychological Review, 1989, vol. 96, no. 30, pp.
Fleck M.S., Samei E., Mitroff S.R. Generalized
“Satisfaction of Search”: Adverse Influences on Dual- Target Search Accuracy.
Journal of Experimental Psychology. Applied, 2010, vol. 16, no. 1, pp.
60—71. doi: 10.1037/a0018629
Gorbunova E. Perceptual similarity in visual search for
multiple targets. Acta Psychologica, 2017, vol. 173, pp. 46—54.
Gorbunova E.S. Prostranstvennaya rabochaya pamyat’ pri
reshenii zadachi zritel’nogo poiska mnozhestvennykh stimulov [Spatial working
memory in visual search for multiple targets] Eksperimental’naya
psikhologiya [Experimental Psychology], 2017, vol. 10, no. 1, pp. 38—52.
Kristjánsson Á., Campana G. Where perception meets memory:
A review of repetition priming in visual search tasks. Attention,
Perception, & Psychophysics, 2017, vol. 72, pp. 5—18. doi:
Kwak H.-W., Dagenbach D., Egeth H. Further evidence for a
time-independent shift of the focus of attention. Perception &
Psychophysics, 1991, vol. 49, no. 5, pp. 473—480
Schwarz W., Eiselt A.K. Numerical distance effects in
visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 2012, vol.
74, no. 60, pp. 1098—1103. doi: 10.3758/s13414-012-0342-8
Tuddenham W.J. Visual search, image organization, and
reader error in roentgen diagnosis. Radiology, 1962, vol. 78, pp.
Visser T.A., Davis C., Ohan J.L. When similarity leads to
sparing: probing mechanisms underlying the attentional blink. Psychological
Research, 2009, vol. 73, no. 3, pp. 327—335.