Prospects for using visual search tasks in modern cognitive psychology



The article describes the main results of modern foreign studies with modifications of classical visual search tasks, as well as proposed classification of such modifications. The essence of visual search is to find target stimuli among the distracters, and the standard task involves finding one target stimulus, which is usually a simple object. Modifications to the standard task may include the presence of more than one target on the screen, the search for more than one type of target, and options that combine both of these modifications. Proposed modifications of the standard task allow not only to study new aspects of visual attention, but also to approach real-life tasks within laboratory studies.

General Information

Keywords: visual search, visual attention, hybrid search, foraging search, subsequent search misses, accidental findings.

Journal rubric: General Psychology

Article type: review article


Funding. The article was prepared within the framework of the Basic Research Program at the National Research University Higher School of Economics (HSE).

For citation: Gorbunova E.S. Prospects for using visual search tasks in modern cognitive psychology [Elektronnyi resurs]. Sovremennaia zarubezhnaia psikhologiia = Journal of Modern Foreign Psychology, 2020. Vol. 9, no. 2, pp. 107–116. DOI: 10.17759/jmfp.2020090209. (In Russ., аbstr. in Engl.)


  1. Falikman M.V. Obshchaya psikhologiya. Vnimanie: Uchebnik dlya VUZov = [General psychology. Attention. Textbook for high schools]. Moscow: Akademiya, 2006. 480 p. (In Russ.).
  2. Cain M.S. et al. 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
  3. Adamo S.H., Cain M.S., Mitroff S.R. An individual differences approach to multiple-target visual search errors: How search errors relate to different characteristics of attention. Vision Research, 2017. Vol. 141, pp. 258–265. DOI:10.1016/j.visres.2016.10.010
  4. Adamo S.H., Cain M.S., Mitroff S.R. Satisfaction at last: Evidence for the “satisfaction” hypothesis for multiple-target search errors. Visual Cognition, 2015. Vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 821–825. DOI:10.1080/13506285.2015.1093248
  5. 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
  6. 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:10.1177/0301006615594921
  7. Biggs A.T. Getting satisfied with “satisfaction of search”: How to measure errors during multiple-target visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 2017. Vol. 79, pp. 1352–1365. DOI:10.3758/s13414-017-1300-2
  8. 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
  9. Cowan N. Attention and Memory: An integrated framework. New York: Oxford U press, 1995. 323 p.
  10. Cunningham C.A., Wolfe J.M. The role of object categories in hybrid visual and memory search. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 2014. Vol. 143, no. 4, pp. 1585–1599. DOI:10.1037/a0036313
  11. Drew T., Boettcher S., Wolfe J.M. One visual search, many memory searches: An eye-tracking investigation of hybrid search. Journal of vision, 2017. Vol. 17, no. 11, 10 p. DOI:10.1167/17.11.5
  12. Drew T., Boettcher S.E., Wolfe J.M. Searching while loaded: Visual working memory does not interfere with hybrid search efficiency but hybrid search uses working memory capacity. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 2016. Vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 201–212. DOI:10.3758/s13423-015-0874-8
  13. Drew T., Wolfe J.M. Hybrid search in the temporal domain: Evidence for rapid, serial logarithmic search through memory. Attention, perception & psychophysics, 2015. Vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 296–303. DOI:10.3758/s13414-013-0606-y
  14. Biggs A.T. et al. 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
  15. 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
  16. Gorbunova E. Perceptual similarity in visual search for multiple targets. Acta Psychologica, 2017. Vol. 173, pp. 46–54. DOI:10.1016/j.actpsy.2016.11.010
  17. Adamo S.H. et al. How to correctly put the “subsequent” in subsequent search miss errors. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 2019. Vol. 81, pp. 2648–2657. DOI:10.3758/s13414-019-01802-8
  18. Wolfe J.M. et al. Hybrid foraging search: Searching for multiple instances of multiple types of target. Vision Research, 2016. Vol. 119, pp. 50–59. DOI:10.1016/j.visres.2015.12.006
  19. Mack A., Rock I. Inattentional Blindness. Cambridge, USA: MIT Press, 1998. 258 p.
  20. Maxfield J., Zelinsky G. Searching Through the Hierarchy: How Level of Target Categorization Affects Visual Search. Visual cognition, 2012. Vol. 20, no. 10, pp. 1153–1163. DOI:10.1080/13506285.2012.735718
  21. Raymond J.E., Shapiro K.L., Arnell K.M. Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: An attentional blink? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1992. Vol. 18, no. 3, pp. 849–860. DOI:10.1037/0096-1523.18.3.849
  22. Gorbunova E.S. et al. The Role of Working Memory in Dual-Target Visual Search. Frontiers in psychology, 2019. Vol. 10, article ID 1673, 15 p. DOI:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01673
  23. Berbaum K.S. et al. Time course of satisfaction of search. Investigative Radiology, 1991. Vol. 26, no. 7, pp. 640–648. DOI:10.1097/00004424-199107000-00003
  24. Vecera S.P. Toward a Biased Competition Account of Object-Based Segregation and Attention. Brain and Mind, 2000. Vol. 1, pp. 353–384. DOI:10.1023/A:1011565623996
  25. Fougnie D. et al. Winter is coming: How humans forage in a temporally structured environment. Journal of vision, 2015. Vol. 15, no. 11, 11 p. DOI:10.1167/15.11.1
  26. Wolfe J.M. Saved by a log: How do humans perform hybrid visual and memory search? Psychological Science, 2012. Vol. 23, no. 7, pp. 698–703. DOI:10.1177/0956797612443968
  27. Wolfe J.M., AlaouiSoce A., Schill H.M. How did I miss that? Developing mixed hybrid visual search as a «model system» for incidental finding errors in radiology. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2017. Vol. 2, no. 35, 10 p. DOI:10.1186/s41235-017-0072-5
  28. Wolfe J.M., Cain M.S., Aizenman A.M. Guidance and selection history in hybrid foraging visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 2019. Vol. 81, pp. 637–653. DOI:10.3758/s13414-018-01649-5
  29. Wolfe J.M., Cain M.S., Alaoui-Soce A. Hybrid value foraging: How the value of targets shapes human foraging behavior. Attention, Perception,& Psychophysics, 2018. Vol. 80, pp. 609–621. DOI:10.3758/s13414-017-1471-x

Information About the Authors

Elena S. Gorbunova, PhD in Psychology, LAssociate Professor, Head of Laboratory of Cognitive Psychology of Digital Interfaces User, School of Psychology, National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia, ORCID:, e-mail:



Total: 773
Previous month: 23
Current month: 14


Total: 602
Previous month: 5
Current month: 4