August 2012
Volume 12, Issue 9
Free
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   August 2012
What eye-tracking can tell us about multiple-target visual search
Author Affiliations
  • Matthew S. Cain
    Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University\nDepartment of Psychology & Neuroscience, Duke University
  • Stephen H. Adamo
    Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University\nDepartment of Psychology & Neuroscience, Duke University
  • Stephen R. Mitroff
    Center for Cognitive Neuroscience, Duke University\nDepartment of Psychology & Neuroscience, Duke University
Journal of Vision August 2012, Vol.12, 1010. doi:10.1167/12.9.1010
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to Subscribers Only
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Matthew S. Cain, Stephen H. Adamo, Stephen R. Mitroff; What eye-tracking can tell us about multiple-target visual search. Journal of Vision 2012;12(9):1010. doi: 10.1167/12.9.1010.

      Download citation file:


      © ARVO (1962-2015); The Authors (2016-present)

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Many real-world visual searches contain multiple targets (e.g., a medical X-ray may have multiple tumors visible), and multiple-target searches present additional challenges beyond those of single-target searches. Specifically, finding one target can reduce the likelihood of finding a second target in the same array (a phenomenon dubbed ‘satisfaction of search’; Tuddenham, 1962), and this likelihood can be modulated by external factors such as anxiety (e.g., Cain, Dunsmoor, LaBar, & Mitroff, 2011). Multiple-target search effects have been examined in radiology (see Berbaum, et al., 2010) and in cognitive psychology (e.g., Fleck, Samei, & Mitroff, 2010), yet key questions remain about the underlying mechanisms. To address these questions, we utilized eye-tracking to provide insights into why targets are missed in multiple-target searches. Participants searched for perfect-T targets among pseudo-L distractors, with displays containing either 1 or 2 targets. Finding a first target in a multiple-target trial did not influence overall search performance (e.g., no change in average fixation time on distractors). However, analyses of the trials where the second target was missed revealed that: (1) second targets were not fixated on more than half of the multiple-target trials, and (2) when they were fixated, the average fixation length fell below the median fixation length for distractors. Collectively, this suggests that satisfaction of search is due, in part, to searchers not finding and fixating second targets long enough to determine their identity. These results present a different picture than previous radiological findings (Berbaum et al., 1998; Samuel et al., 1995), which found that missed targets were fixated the same amount of time regardless of whether or not another target had been detected. Satisfaction of search remains a very real problem, and these data suggest that the type of search and the searcher’s level of expertise may both play an important role.

Meeting abstract presented at VSS 2012

×
×

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

Sign in or purchase a subscription to access this content. ×

You must be signed into an individual account to use this feature.

×