Russian Psychological Issues
JournalsTopicsAuthorsEditor's Choice For AuthorsAbout PsyJournals.ruContact Us

  Previous issue (2020. Vol. 13, no. 1)

Included in Web of Science СС (ESCI)


Experimental Psychology (Russia)

Publisher: Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

ISSN (printed version): 2072-7593

ISSN (online): 2311-7036


License: CC BY-NC 4.0

Started in 2008

Published quarterly

Free of fees
Open Access Journal


Stimuli similarity in subsequent search misses 547

Lanina A.A.
Research Assistant, Laboratory for Cognitive Psychology of Digital Interfaces User, Moscow, Russia

Gorbunova E.S.
PhD in Psychology, Lecturer, Chair of General and Experimental Psychology, Department of Psychology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia

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.

Keywords: visual search, visual attention, perceptual set, subsequent search misses

Column: Cognitive Psychology


For Reference

  1. 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: 10.1177/0956797613497970
  2. 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: 10.1080/13506285.2012.726448
  3. 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.
  4. 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
  5. 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
  6. 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
  7. Duncan J., Humphreys G.W. Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 1989, vol. 96, no. 30, pp. 433—458.
  8. 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
  9. Gorbunova E. Perceptual similarity in visual search for multiple targets. Acta Psychologica, 2017, vol. 173, pp. 46—54. 10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.11.010
  10. 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. (In Russ.).
  11. 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: 10.3758/APP.72.1.5
  12. 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
  13. 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
  14. Tuddenham W.J. Visual search, image organization, and reader error in roentgen diagnosis. Radiology, 1962, vol. 78, pp. 694—704.
  15. 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. 10.1007/s00426-008-0155-5

© 2007–2020 Portal of Russian Psychological Publications. All rights reserved in Russian

Publisher: Moscow State University of Psychology and Education

Catalogue of academic journals in psychology & education MSUPE

Creative Commons License Open Access Repository

RSS Psyjournals at facebook Psyjournals at Twitter Psyjournals at Youtube ??????.???????