Stimuli similarity in subsequent search misses



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.

General Information

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

Journal rubric: Cognitive Psychology

Article type: scientific article


For citation: Lanina A.A., Gorbunova E.S. Stimuli similarity in subsequent search misses. Eksperimental'naâ psihologiâ = Experimental Psychology (Russia), 2018. Vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 51–62. DOI: 10.17759/exppsy.2018110304. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)


  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

Information About the Authors

A. A. Lanina, Research Assistant, Laboratory for Cognitive Psychology of Digital Interfaces User, Undergraduate student of School of Psychology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia, e-mail:

Elena S. Gorbunova, PhD in Psychology, Laboratory Head, Laboratory for Cognitive Psychology of Digital Interface Users, Assistant Professor, School of Psychology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia, ORCID:, e-mail:



Total: 1631
Previous month: 4
Current month: 0


Total: 700
Previous month: 2
Current month: 2