Abstract
Visual search (e.g., finding a specific object in an array of other objects) is performed most effectively when people are able to ignore distracting nontargets. In repeated search, however, incidental learning of object identities may facilitate performance. In three experiments, with over 1,100 participants, we examined the extent to which search could be facilitated by object memory and by memory for spatial layouts. Participants searched for new targets (real-world, nameable objects) embedded among repeated distractors. To make the task more challenging, some participants performed search for multiple targets, increasing demands on visual working memory (WM). Following search, memory for search distractors was assessed using a surprise two-alternative forced choice recognition memory test with semantically matched foils. Search performance was facilitated by distractor object learning and by spatial memory; it was most robust when object identity was consistently tied to spatial locations and weakest (or absent) when object identities were inconsistent across trials. Incidental memory for distractors was better among participants who searched under high WM load, relative to low WM load. These results were observed when visual search included exhaustive-search trials (Experiment 1) or when all trials were self-terminating (Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, stimulus exposure was equated across WM load groups by presenting objects in a single-object stream; recognition accuracy was similar to that in Experiments 1 and 2. Together, the results suggest that people incidentally generate memory for nontarget objects encountered during search and that such memory can facilitate search performance.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Castelhano, M. S., & Henderson, J. M. (2005). Incidental visual memory for objects in scenes. Visual Cognition, 12, 1017–1040. doi:10.1080/13506280444000634
Chun, M. M., & Jiang, Y. (1998). Contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 28–71. doi:10.1006/cogp.1998.0681
Chun, M. M., & Jiang, Y. (1999). Top-down attentional guidance based on implicit learning of visual covariation. Psychological Science, 10, 360–365. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00168
Chun, M. M., & Jiang, Y. (2003). Implicit, long-term spatial contextual memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 29, 224–234. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.29.2.224
Conway, A. R. A., Cowan, N., & Bunting, M. F. (2001). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: The importance of working memory capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8, 331–335.
Conway, A. R. A., Tuholski, S. W., Shisler, R. J., & Engle, R. W. (1999). The effect of memory load on negative priming: An individual differences investigation. Memory & Cognition, 27, 1042–1050.
Craik, F. I. M., & Lockhart, R. S. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 11, 671–684. doi:10.1016/S0022-5371(72)80001-X
de Fockert, J. W., Rees, G., Frith, C. D., & Lavie, N. (2001). The role of working memory in visual selective attention. Science, 291, 1803–1806. doi:10.1126/science.1056496
Endo, N., & Takeda, Y. (2004). Selective learning of spatial configura tion and object identity in visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 66, 293–302.
Engle, R. W., Conway, A. R. A., Tuholski, S. W., & Shisler, R. J. (1995). A resource account of inhibition. Psychological Science, 6, 122–125. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1995.tb00318.x
Frith, U. (1974). A curious effect with reversed letters explained by a theory of schema. Perception & Psychophysics, 16, 113–116.
Gazzaley, A., Cooney, J. W., Rissman, J., & Desposito, M. (2005). Top-down suppression deficit underlies working memory impairment in normal aging. Nature Neuroscience, 8, 1298–1300. doi:10.1038/ nn1543
Hollingworth, A. (2005). The relationship between online visual representation of a scene and long-term scene memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 31, 396–411. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.31.3.396
Hollingworth, A. (2006). Scene and position specificity in visual memory for objects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 32, 58–69. doi:10.1037/0278-7393.32.1.58
Hollingworth, A. (2007). Objectposition binding in visual memory for natural scenes and object arrays. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 33, 31–47. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.33.1.31
Hollingworth, A., & Henderson, J. M. (2002). Accurate visual memory for previously attended objects in natural scenes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 28, 113–136. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.28.1.113
Hout, M. C., & Goldinger, S. D. (2009). Incidental learning speeds visual search by lowering response thresholds, not by improving oculomotor behaviors: Evidence from eye movements. Manuscript submitted for publication. Jiang, Y., & Leung, A. W. (2005). Implicit learning of ignored visual context. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 100-106.
Jiang, Y., & Song, J.-H. (2005). Hyperspecificity in visual implicit learning: Learning of spatial layout is contingent on item identity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 31, 1439–1448. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.31.6.1439
Körner, C., & Gilchrist, I. D. (2007). Finding a new target in an old display: Evidence for a memory recency effect in visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 846–851.
Kunar, M. A., Flusberg, S., & Wolfe, J. M. (2008). The role of memory and restricted context in repeated visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 70, 314–328. doi:10.3758/PP.70.2.314
Lavie, N., & de Fockert, J. [W.] (2005). The role of working memory in attentional capture. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 12, 669–674.
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, 339–354. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.133.3.339
Melcher, D. (2006). Accumulation and persistence of memory for natural scenes. Journal of Vision, 6, 8–17. doi:10.1167/6.1.2
Menneer, T., Barrett, D. J. K., Phillips, L., Donnelly, N., & Cave, K. R. (2007). Costs in searching for two targets: Dividing search across target types could improve airport security screening. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 21, 915–932. doi:10.1002/acp.1305
Menneer, T., Cave, K. R., & Donnelly, N. (2009). The cost of search for multiple targets: Effects of practice and target similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 125–139. doi:10.1037/ a0015331
Moray, N. (1959). Attention in dichotic listening: Affective cues and the influence of instructions. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 11, 56–60.
Mruczek, R. E. B., & Sheinberg, D. L. (2005). Distractor familiarity leads to more efficient visual search for complex stimuli. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 1016–1031.
Reicher, G. M., Snyder, C. R. R., & Richards, J. T. (1976). Familiarity of background characters in visual scanning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 2, 522–530. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.2.4.522
Richards, J. T., & Reicher, G. M. (1978). The effects of background familiarity in visual search: An analysis of underlying factors. Perception & Psychophysics, 23, 499–505.
Schneider, W., Eschman, A., & Zuccolotto, A. (2002). E-Prime users guide. Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools.
Sternberg, S. (1966). High-speed scanning in human memory. Science, 153, 652–654. doi:10.1126/science.153.3736.652
Tatler, B. W., Gilchrist, I. D., & Land, M. F. (2005). Visual memory for objects in natural scenes: From fixations to object files. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 58A, 931–960.
Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(80)90005-5
Williams, C. C. (2009, November). Encoding and visual memory: Is task always irrelevant? Paper presented at the 50th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society, Boston.
Williams, C. C. (2010). Not all visual memories are created equal. Visual Cognition, 18, 201–228.
Williams, C. C., Henderson, J. M., & Zacks, R. T. (2005). Incidental visual memory for targets and distractors in visual search. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 816–827.
Wolfe, J. M., Klempen, N., & Dahlen, K. (2000). Postattentive vision. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance, 26, 693–716. doi:10.1037/0096-1523.26.2.693
Wolfe, J. M., Oliva, A., Butcher, S. J., & Arsenio, H. C. (2002). An unbinding problem? The disintegration of visible, previously attended objects does not attract attention. Journal of Vision, 2(3), 256–271. doi:10.1167/2.3.5
Wood, N. L., & Cowan, N. (1995). The cocktail party phenomenon revisited: Attention and memory in the classic selective listening procedure of Cherry (1953). Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 124, 243–262. doi:10.1037/0096-3445.124.3.243
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
Support was provided by NIH Grant R01-DC04535-10 to the second author.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hout, M.C., Goldinger, S.D. Learning in repeated visual search. Atten Percept Psychophys 72, 1267–1282 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.5.1267
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/APP.72.5.1267