Abstract
National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology, Tsukuba, Japan When some distractors (old items) appear before others (new items) in an inefficient visual search task, the old items are excluded from the search (visual marking). Previous studies have shown that shape changes of static old items are sufficient to eliminate this effect when global luminance is maintained, suggesting that shape identity must be maintained for successful visual marking. It was unclear whether the change in meaning or shape was critical, because these changes were confounded in previous studies. The present study examined whether consistency in the semantic or the graphical identity of old items is critical for visual marking by introducing shape change in the absence of meaning change. The results indicated that visual marking survived graphical changes in old items as long as their meaning was maintained, suggesting that the memory template underlying visual marking represents the semantic identity of old items.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Agter, F., &Donk, M. (2005). Prioritized selection in visual search through onset capture and color inhibition: Evidence from a probe-dot detection task.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,31, 722–730.
Brainard, D. H. (1997). The Psychophysics Toolbox.Spatial Vision,10, 433–436.
Braithwaite, J. J., &Humphreys, G. W. (2003). Inhibition and anticipation in visual search: Evidence from effects of color foreknowledge on preview search.Perception & Psychophysics,65, 213–237.
Braithwaite, J. J., Humphreys, G. W., &Hulleman, J. (2005). Colorbased grouping and inhibition in visual search: Evidence from a probe detection analysis of preview search.Perception & Psychophysics,67, 81–101.
Donk, M. (2005). Prioritizing selection of new elements: On the time course of the preview effect.Visual Cognition,12, 1373–1385.
Donk, M., Agter, F., &Pratt, J. (2009). Effects of luminance change in preview search: Offsets and onsets can be concurrently prioritized but not in isolation.Acta Psychologica,130, 260–267.
Donk, M., &Theeuwes, J. (2001). Visual marking beside the mark: Prioritizing selection by abrupt onsets.Perception & Psychophysics,63, 891–900.
Donk, M., &Theeuwes, J. (2003). Prioritizing selection of new elements: Bottom-up versus top-down control.Perception & Psychophysics,65, 1231–1242.
Donk, M., &Verburg, R. C. (2004). Prioritizing new elements with a brief preview period: Evidence against visual marking.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 282–288.
Egeth, H. E., Virzi, R. A., &Garbart, H. (1984). Searching for conjunctively defined targets.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 32–39.
Jiang, Y., Chun, M. M., &Marks, L. E. (2002a). Visual marking: Dissociating effects of new and old set size.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Leaning, Memory, & Cognition,28, 293–302.
Jiang, Y., Chun, M. M., &Marks, L. E. (2002b). Visual marking: Selective attention to asynchronous temporal groups.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,28, 717–730.
Kaptein, N. A., Theeuwes, J., &van der Heijden, A. H. C. (1995). Search for a conjunctively defined target can be selectively limited to a color-defined subset of elements.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,21, 1053–1069.
Kunar, M. A., Humphreys, G. W., &Smith, K. J. (2003a). History matters: The preview benefit in search is not onset capture.Psychological Science,14, 181–185.
Kunar, M. A., Humphreys, G. W., &Smith, K. J. (2003b). Visual change with moving displays: More evidence for color feature map inhibition during preview search.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,29, 779–792.
Kunar, M. A., Humphreys, G. W., Smith, K. J., &Watson, D. G. (2003). When a reappearance is old news: Visual marking survives occlusion.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,29, 185–198.
Meyer, D. E., &Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations.Journal of Experimental Psychology,90, 227–234.
Olivers, C. N. L., &Humphreys, G. W. (2002). When visual marking meets the attentional blink: More evidence for top-down, limitedcapacity inhibition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,28, 22–42.
Osugi, T., Kumada, T., &Kawahara, J. (2009). The spatial distribution of inhibition in preview search.Vision Research,49, 851–861.
Pelli, D. G. (1997). The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: Transforming numbers into movies.Spatial Vision,10, 437–442.
Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,32, 3–25.
Pratt, J., Theeuwes, J., &Donk, W. (2007). Offsets and prioritizing the selection of new elements in search displays: More evidence for attentional capture in the preview effect.Visual Cognition,15, 133–148.
Rossion, B., &Pourtois, G. (2004). Revisiting Snodgrass and Vanderwart’s object pictorial set: The role of surface detail in basic-level object recognition.Perception,33, 217–236.
Sobel, K. V., &Cave, K. R. (2002). The roles of salience and strategy in conjunction search.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,28, 1055–1070.
Theeuwes, J. (1992). Perceptual selectivity for color and form.Perception & Psychophysics,51, 599–606.
Theeuwes, J. (2004). Top-down search strategies cannot override attentional capture.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,11, 65–70.
Watson, D. G., Braithwaite, J. J., &Humphreys, G. W. (2008). Resisting change: The influence of luminance changes on visual marking and the preview benefit.Perception & Psychophysics,70, 1526–1539.
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.
Watson, D. G., &Humphreys, G. W. (2002). Visual marking and visual change.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,28, 379–395.
Watson, D. G., &Humphreys, G. W. (2005). Visual marking: The effects of irrelevant changes on preview search.Perception & Psychophysics,67, 418–434.
Watson, D. G., Humphreys, G. W., &Olivers, C. N. L. (2003). Visual marking: Using time in visual selection.Trends in Cognitive Sciences,7, 180–186.
Watson, D. G., &Inglis, M. (2007). Eye movements and time-based selection: Where do the eyes go in preview search?Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,14, 852–857.
Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0: A revised model of visual search.Psychonomic Bulletin & Review,1, 202–238.
Wolfe, J. M., Butcher, S. J., Lee, C., &Hyle, M. (2003). Changing your mind: On the contributions of top-down and bottom-up guidance in visual search for feature singletons.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,29, 483–502.
Yantis, S., &Jones, E. (1991). Mechanisms of attentional selection: Temporally modulated priority tags.Perception & Psychophysics,50, 166–178.
Yantis, S., &Jonides, J. (1984). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Evidence from visual search.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,10, 601–621.
Yantis, S., &Jonides, J. (1990). Abrupt visual onsets and selective attention: Voluntary versus automatic allocation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,16, 121–134.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Osugi, T., Kumada, T. & Kawahara, J. Visual marking survives graphical change if meaning is retained. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 72, 2144–2156 (2010). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196690
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196690