scholarly journals How the Strength of a Strong Object Mask Varies in Space and Time When it is Used as an Uninformative Singleton in Visual Search for Target Location

Psychology ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 02 (08) ◽  
pp. 824-833 ◽  
Author(s):  
Talis Bachmann ◽  
Endel Põder ◽  
Carolina Murd



Author(s):  
Tobias Rieger ◽  
Lydia Heilmann ◽  
Dietrich Manzey

AbstractVisual inspection of luggage using X-ray technology at airports is a time-sensitive task that is often supported by automated systems to increase performance and reduce workload. The present study evaluated how time pressure and automation support influence visual search behavior and performance in a simulated luggage screening task. Moreover, we also investigated how target expectancy (i.e., targets appearing in a target-often location or not) influenced performance and visual search behavior. We used a paradigm where participants used the mouse to uncover a portion of the screen which allowed us to track how much of the stimulus participants uncovered prior to their decision. Participants were randomly assigned to either a high (5-s time per trial) or a low (10-s time per trial) time-pressure condition. In half of the trials, participants were supported by an automated diagnostic aid (85% reliability) in deciding whether a threat item was present. Moreover, within each half, in target-present trials, targets appeared in a predictable location (i.e., 70% of targets appeared in the same quadrant of the image) to investigate effects of target expectancy. The results revealed better detection performance with low time pressure and faster response times with high time pressure. There was an overall negative effect of automation support because the automation was only moderately reliable. Participants also uncovered a smaller amount of the stimulus under high time pressure in target-absent trials. Target expectancy of target location improved accuracy, speed, and the amount of uncovered space needed for the search.Significance Statement Luggage screening is a safety–critical real-world visual search task which often has to be done under time pressure. The present research found that time pressure compromises performance and increases the risk to miss critical items even with automation support. Moreover, even highly reliable automated support may not improve performance if it does not exceed the manual capabilities of the human screener. Lastly, the present research also showed that heuristic search strategies (e.g., areas where targets appear more often) seem to guide attention also in luggage screening.



NeuroImage ◽  
2016 ◽  
Vol 124 ◽  
pp. 887-897 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stefan Pollmann ◽  
Jana Eštočinová ◽  
Susanne Sommer ◽  
Leonardo Chelazzi ◽  
Wolf Zinke


2001 ◽  
Vol 54 (4) ◽  
pp. 1105-1124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yuhong Jiang ◽  
Marvin M. Chun

The effect of selective attention on implicit learning was tested in four experiments using the “contextual cueing” paradigm (Chun & Jiang, 1998, 1999). Observers performed visual search through items presented in an attended colour (e.g., red) and an ignored colour (e.g., green). When the spatial configuration of items in the attended colour was invariant and was consistently paired with a target location, visual search was facilitated, showing contextual cueing (Experiments 1, 3, and 4). In contrast, repeating and pairing the configuration of the ignored items with the target location resulted in no contextual cueing (Experiments 2 and 4). We conclude that implicit learning is robust only when relevant, predictive information is selectively attended.



2000 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 292-300 ◽  
Author(s):  
E. S. Olds ◽  
W. B. Cowan ◽  
P. Jolicoeur
Keyword(s):  


2009 ◽  
Vol 62 (7) ◽  
pp. 1430-1454 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bradley J. Poole ◽  
Michael J. Kane

Variation in working-memory capacity (WMC) predicts individual differences in only some attention-control capabilities. Whereas higher WMC subjects outperform lower WMC subjects in tasks requiring the restraint of prepotent but inappropriate responses, and the constraint of attentional focus to target stimuli against distractors, they do not differ in prototypical visual-search tasks, even those that yield steep search slopes and engender top-down control. The present three experiments tested whether WMC, as measured by complex memory span tasks, would predict search latencies when the 1–8 target locations to be searched appeared alone, versus appearing among distractor locations to be ignored, with the latter requiring selective attentional focus. Subjects viewed target-location cues and then fixated on those locations over either long (1,500–1,550 ms) or short (300 ms) delays. Higher WMC subjects identified targets faster than did lower WMC subjects only in the presence of distractors and only over long fixation delays. WMC thus appears to affect subjects’ ability to maintain a constrained attentional focus over time.



2009 ◽  
Vol 101 (5) ◽  
pp. 2485-2506 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aditya Murthy ◽  
Supriya Ray ◽  
Stephanie M. Shorter ◽  
Jeffrey D. Schall ◽  
Kirk G. Thompson

The dynamics of visual selection and saccade preparation by the frontal eye field was investigated in macaque monkeys performing a search-step task combining the classic double-step saccade task with visual search. Reward was earned for producing a saccade to a color singleton. On random trials the target and one distractor swapped locations before the saccade and monkeys were rewarded for shifting gaze to the new singleton location. A race model accounts for the probabilities and latencies of saccades to the initial and final singleton locations and provides a measure of the duration of a covert compensation process—target-step reaction time. When the target stepped out of a movement field, noncompensated saccades to the original location were produced when movement-related activity grew rapidly to a threshold. Compensated saccades to the final location were produced when the growth of the original movement-related activity was interrupted within target-step reaction time and was replaced by activation of other neurons producing the compensated saccade. When the target stepped into a receptive field, visual neurons selected the new target location regardless of the monkeys’ response. When the target stepped out of a receptive field most visual neurons maintained the representation of the original target location, but a minority of visual neurons showed reduced activity. Chronometric analyses of the neural responses to the target step revealed that the modulation of visually responsive neurons and movement-related neurons occurred early enough to shift attention and saccade preparation from the old to the new target location. These findings indicate that visual activity in the frontal eye field signals the location of targets for orienting, whereas movement-related activity instantiates saccade preparation.



Author(s):  
John P. McIntire ◽  
Paul R. Havig ◽  
Scott N. J. Watamaniuk ◽  
Robert H. Gilkey


2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Chisato Mine ◽  
Steven Most ◽  
Mike Le Pelley

Preview benefit refers to faster search for a target when a subset of distractors is seen prior to the search display. We investigated whether reward modulates this effect. Participants identified a target among non-targets on each trial. On “preview” trials, placeholders occupied half the search array positions prior to the onset of the full array. On “non-preview” trials, no placeholders preceded the full search array. On preview trials, the target could appear at either a placeholder position (old-target-location condition) or a position where no placeholder had been (new-target-location condition). Critically, the color of the stimulus array indicated whether participants would earn reward for a correct response. We found a typical preview benefit, but no evidence that reward modulated this effect, despite a manipulation check showing that stimuli in the reward-signaling color tended to capture attention on catch trials. The results suggest that reward learning does not modulate the preview benefit.



2007 ◽  
Vol 15 (7) ◽  
pp. 834-853 ◽  
Author(s):  
Giorgio Fuggetta ◽  
Gianluca Campana ◽  
Clara Casco


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document