Abstract
We describe a new multi-item localization task that can be used to probe thetemporal andspatial contexts of search-like behaviors. A sequence of four target letters (e.g., E, F, G, and H) was presented among four distractor letters. Observers located the targets in order. Both retrospective and prospective components of performance were examined. The retrospective component was assessed by having target items either vanish or remain once they had been located. This manipulation had little effect on search performance, suggesting that old target items can be efficiently ignored. The prospective component was assessed by shuffling future target and distractor locations after each response. This manipulation revealed that observers typically plan ahead at least one target into the future. However, even when observers cannot plan ahead, they are still able to ignore old targets. These findings suggest that both “what you did” and “what you intend to do” can influence the localization and selection of targets.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adam, J. J., Nieuwenstein, J. H., Huys, R., Paas, F. G., Kingma, H., Willems, P., &Werry, M. (2000). Control of rapid aimed hand movements: The one-target advantage.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 295–312.
Briand, K. A., Larrison, A. L., &Sereno, A. B. (2000). Inhibition of return in manual and saccadic response systems.Perception & Psychophysics,62, 1512–1524.
Chun, M. M., &Jiang, Y. (1998). Contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention.Cognitive Psychology,36, 28–71.
Donk, M., &Theeuwes, J. (2001). Visual marking beside the mark: Prioritizing selection by abrupt onsets.Perception & Psychophysics,63, 891–900.
Duncan, J., &Humphreys, G. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity.Psychological Review,96, 433–458.
Duncan, J., &Humphreys, G. (1992). Beyond the search surface: Visual search and attentional engagement.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,18, 578–588.
Eckstein, M. P., Thomas, J. P., Palmer, J., &Shimozaki, S. S. (2000). A signal detection model predicts the effects of set size on visual search accuracy for feature, conjunction, triple conjunction, and disjunction displays.Perception & Psychophysics,62, 425–451.
Fischer, M. H., Pratt, J., &Neggers, S. F.W. (2003). Inhibition of return and manual pointing movements.Perception & Psychophysics,65, 379–387.
Fischer, M. H., Rosenbaum, D. A., &Vaughan, J. (1997). Speed and sequential effects in reaching.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,23, 404–428.
Gibson, B. S., &Jiang, Y. (2001). Visual marking and the perception of salience in visual search.Perception & Psychophysics,63, 59–73.
Gibson, B. S., Li, L., Skow, E., Salvagni, K., &Cooke, L. (2000). Memory-based tagging of targets during visual search for one versus two identical targets.Psychological Science,11, 324–328.
Gilchrist, I. D., &Harvey, M. (2000). Refixation frequency and memory mechanisms in visual search.Current Biology,10, 1209–1212.
Gilchrist, I. D., North, A., &Hood, B. (2001). Is visual search really like foraging?Perception,30, 1459–1464.
Hillstrom, A. P. (2000). Repetition effects in visual search.Perception & Psychophysics,62, 800–817.
Hollingworth, A., Williams, C. C., &Henderson, J. M. (2001). To see and remember: Visually specific information is retained in memory from previously attended objects in natural scenes.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,8, 761–768.
Horowitz, T. S., &Wolfe, J. M. (1998). Visual search has no memory.Nature,394, 575–577.
Horowitz, T. S., &Wolfe, J. M. (2001). Search for multiple targets: Remember the targets, forget the search.Perception & Psychophysics,63, 272–285.
Horowitz, T. S., &Wolfe, J. M. (2003). Memory for rejected distractors in visual search?Visual Cognition,10, 257–298.
Howard, L. A., Lupiáñez, J., &Tipper, S. P. (1999). Inhibition of return in a selective reaching task: An investigation of reference frames.Journal of General Psychology,126, 421–442.
Keulen, R. F., Adam, J. J., Fischer, M. H., Kuipers, H., &Jolles, J. (2002). Selective reaching: Evidence for multiple frames of reference.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,28, 515–526.
Klein, R. [M.] (1988). Inhibitory tagging system facilitates visual search.Nature,334, 430–431.
Klein, R. M., &MacInnes, W. J. (1999). Inhibition of return is a foraging facilitator in visual search.Psychological Science,10, 346–352.
Klein, R. M., &Taylor, T. L. (1994). Categories of cognitive inhibition with reference to attention. In D. Dagenbach & T. H. Carr (Eds.),Inhibitory processes in attention, memory, and language (pp. 113–150). San Diego: Academic Press.
Kristjánsson, A. (2000). In search of remembrance: Evidence for memory in visual search.Psychological Science,11, 328–332.
Krueger, L. E. (1984). The category effect in visual search depends on physical rather than conceptual differences.Perception & Psychophysics,35, 558–564.
Maljkovic, V., &Nakayama, K. (1994). Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features.Memory & Cognition,22, 657–672.
Maljkovic, V., &Nakayama, K. (1996). Priming of pop-out: II. Role of position.Perception & Psychophysics,58, 977–991.
McAuliffe, J., Pratt, J., &O’Donnell, C. (2001). Examining location based and object-based components of inhibition of return in static displays.Perception & Psychophysics,63, 1072–1082.
McElree, B., &Carrasco, M. (1999). The temporal dynamics of visual search: Evidence for parallel processing in feature and conjunction searches.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 1517–1539.
Meegan, D. V., &Tipper, S. P. (1998). Reaching into cluttered visual environments: Spatial and temporal influences of distracting objects.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,51A, 225–249.
Meegan, D. V., &Tipper, S. P. (1999). Visual search and target-directed action.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,25, 1347–1362.
Moore, C. M., Egeth, H., Berglan, L. R., &Luck, S. J. (1996). Are attentional dwell times inconsistent with serial visual search?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,3, 360–365.
Müller, H., &von Mühlenen, A. (2000). Probing distractor inhibition in visual search: Inhibition of return.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 1591–1605.
Oh, S.-H., & Kim, M. S. (2002, July).Visual search efficiency is affected by spatial working memory. Paper presented at the Second Asian Conference on Vision, Gyeongju, Korea.
Ojanpää, H., &Näsänen, R. (2002). Visual search and simultaneous short-term memory task [Abstract].Perception,31 (Suppl.), 174b.
Olivers, C. N. L., &Humphreys, G. W. (2000). Visual marking is affected by the attentional blink.Perception,29 (Suppl.), 62–63.
Olivers, C. N. L., Humphreys, G.W., Heinke, D., &Cooper, A. C.G. (2002). Prioritization in visual search: Visual marking is not dependent on a mnemonic search.Perception & Psychophysics,64, 540–560.
Olson, I. R., &Chun, M. M. (2001). Temporal contextual cuing of visual attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition,27, 1299–1313.
Palmer, J. (1995). Attention in visual search: Distinguishing four causes of a set-size effect.Current Directions in Psychological Science,4, 118–123.
Palmer, J., & McLean, J. (1995, August).Imperfect, unlimited-capacity, parallel search yields large set-size effects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Mathematical Psychology, Irvine, CA.
Pelli, D. G., &Zhang, L. (1991). Accurate control of contrast on microcomputer displays.Vision Research,31, 1337–1350.
Peterson, M. S., Kramer, A. F., Wang, R. F., Irwin, D. E., &Mc-Carley, J. S. (2001). Visual search has memory.Psychological Science,12, 287–292.
Posner, M. I., &Cohen, Y. (1984). Components of attention. In H. Bouma & D. G. Bouwhuis (Eds.),Attention and performance X (pp. 55–66). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Posner, M. I., Rafal, R. D., Choate, L. S., &Vaughan, J. (1985). Inhibition of return: Neural basis and function.Cognitive Neuropsychology,2, 211–228.
Pratt, J., &Abrams, R. A. (1994). Action-centered inhibition: Effects of distractors on movement planning and execution.Human Movement Science,13, 245–254.
Reitan, R. M. (1958). The validity of the trial making test as an indicator of organic brain damage.Perceptual & Motor Skills,9, 127–130.
Rensink, R. A. (1990). Toolbox-based routines for Macintosh timing and display.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,22, 105–117.
Rensink, R. A. (2000). Seeing, sensing, and scrutinizing.Vision Research,40, 1469–1487.
Rensink, R. A., O’Regan, J. K., &Clark, J. J. (2000). On the failure to detect changes in scenes across brief interruptions.Visual Cognition,7, 127–145.
Rensink, R. A., &Enns, J. T. (1995). Preemption effects in visual search: Evidence for low-level grouping.Psychological Review,102, 101–130.
Ricker, K. L., Elliott, D., Lyons, J., Gauldie, D., Chua, R., &Byblow, W. (1999). The utilization of visual information in the control of rapid sequential aiming movements.Acta Psychologica,103, 103–123.
Ro, T., &Rafal, R. D. (1999). Components of reflexive visual orienting to moving objects.Perception & Psychophysics,61, 826–836.
Schneider, W., &Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention.Psychological Review,84, 1–66.
Shore, D. I., &Klein, R. M. (2000). On the manifestations of memory in visual search.Spatial Vision,14, 59–75.
Snyder, J. J., &Kingstone, A. (2000). Inhibition of return and visual search: How many separate loci are inhibited?Perception & Psychophysics,62, 452–458.
Steinman, S. B., &Nawrot, M. (1992). Real-time color-frame animation for visual psychophysics on the Macintosh computer.Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers,24, 439–452.
Takeda, Y., &Yagi, A. (2000). Inhibitory tagging in visual search can be found if search stimuli remain visible.Perception & Psychophysics,62, 927–934.
Tanaka, Y., &Shimojo, S. (1996). Location versus feature: Reaction time reveals dissociation between two visual functions.Vision Research,36, 2125–2140.
Theeuwes, J., &Godijn, R. (2002). Irrelevant singletons capture attention: Evidence from inhibition of return.Perception & Psychophysics,64, 764–770.
Theeuwes, J., Kramer, A. F., &Atchley, P. (1998). Visual marking of old objects.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,5, 130–134.
Tipper, S. P., Jordan, H., &Weaver, B. (1999). Scene-based and objectcentered inhibition of return: Evidence for dual orienting mechanisms.Perception & Psychophysics,61, 50–60.
Tipper, S. P., Lortie, C., &Baylis, G. C. (1992). Selective reaching: Evidence for action-centered attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,18, 891–905.
Tipper, S. P., Meegan, D. V., &Howard, L. A. (2002). Action-centred negative priming: Evidence for reactive inhibition.Visual Cognition,9, 591–614.
Tipper, S. P., Weaver, B., Jerreat, L. M., &Burak, A. L. (1994). Objectbased and environment-based inhibition of return of visual attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,20, 478–499.
Treisman, A. (1993). The perception of features and objects. In A. D. Baddeley & L. Weiskrantz (Eds.),Attention: Selection, awareness, and control. A tribute to Donald Broadbent (pp. 5–35). Oxford: Oxford University Press, Clarendon Press.
Treisman, A., & Hayes, A. (1998).Location and feature specificity in priming and automatized search. Unpublished manuscript.
Treisman, A., &Sato, S. (1990). Conjunction search revisited.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,16, 459–478.
Van Selst, M., &Jolicäur, P. (1997). Decision and response in dualtask interference.Cognitive Psychology,33, 266–307.
Watson, D. G. (2001). Visual marking in moving displays: Featurebased inhibition is not necessary.Perception & Psychophysics,63, 74–84.
Watson, D. G., &Humphreys, G. W. (1997). Visual marking: Prioritizing selection for new objects by top-down attentional inhibition of old objects.Psychological Review,104, 90–122.
Watson, D. G., &Humphreys, G.W. (2000). Visual marking: Evidence for inhibition using a probe-dot detection paradigm.Perception & Psychophysics,62, 471–481.
Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of visual search.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,1, 202–238.
Wolfe, J. M. (1998a). Visual search. In H. Pashler (Ed.),Attention (pp. 13–73). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.
Wolfe, J. M. (1998b). What can 1 million trials tell us about visual search?Psychological Science,9, 33–39.
Wolfe, J. M. (1999). Inattentional amnesia. In V. Coltheart (Ed.),Fleeting memories: Cognition of brief visual stimuli (pp. 71–94). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Wolfe, J. M., Klempen, N., &Dahlen, K. (2000). Postattentive vision.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,26, 693–716.
Woodman, G. F., Vogel, E. K., &Luck, S. J. (2001). Visual search remains efficient when working memory is full.Psychological Science,12, 219–224.
Wright, R. D., &Richard, C. M. (1996). Inhibition of return at multiple locations in visual space.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology,50, 324–327.
Yantis, S. (1993). Stimulus-driven attentional capture and attentional control settings.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,19, 676–681.
Zenger, B., &Fahle, M. (1997). Missed targets are more frequent than false alarms: A model for error rates in visual search.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,23, 1783–1791.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding authors
Additional information
The authors contributed equally to this research, and authorshiPorder was determined arbitrarily. Thanks are extended to Richard Abrams, Raymond Klein, Cathleen Moore, Jay Pratt, Kimron Shapiro, Jeremy Wolfe, and an anonymous reviewer for useful comments and suggestions and to George Alvarez, Helga Arsenio, Serena Butcher, Megan Hyle, and Stephan Simon for assistance with data collection.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thornton, I.M., Horowitz, T.S. The multi-item localization (MILO) task: Measuring the spatiotemporal context of vision for action. Perception & Psychophysics 66, 38–50 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194859
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03194859