October 2020
Volume 20, Issue 11
Open Access
Vision Sciences Society Annual Meeting Abstract  |   October 2020
Repeated search can make search slower and less efficient.
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Steven Pesina
    Eastern Kentucky University
  • D. Alexander Varakin
    Eastern Kentucky University
  • Footnotes
    Acknowledgements  SP was supported by the McNair Scholars Program
Journal of Vision October 2020, Vol.20, 637. doi:https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.20.11.637
  • Views
  • Share
  • Tools
    • Alerts
      ×
      This feature is available to authenticated users only.
      Sign In or Create an Account ×
    • Get Citation

      Steven Pesina, D. Alexander Varakin; Repeated search can make search slower and less efficient.. Journal of Vision 2020;20(11):637. doi: https://doi.org/10.1167/jov.20.11.637.

      Download citation file:


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

      ×
  • Supplements
Abstract

Phenomena such as contextual cuing demonstrate that memory can facilitate visual search. In contextual cuing, observers search repeatedly through the same configurations, and as long as the relationship between target (e.g. rotated T) and distractor (e.g. rotated L’s) locations remains stable, search becomes faster and more efficient (Conci & Müller, 2012, Visual Cognition). However, sometimes visual search proceeds without relying on memory. For example, in Wolfe, Klempen, and Dahlen (2000, JEP: HPP), observers repeatedly searched the same displays hundreds of times. Despite ample opportunity to become familiar with each display, visual search did not become faster or more efficient. The current experiment used a repeated search paradigm to test if observers could use knowledge of where targets had appeared in previous trials in order to facilitate search. Participants’ task was to search for a rotated T amongst rotated L’s (set sizes of 8, 12 and 16). The same configuration was searched 8 times consecutively, and within a repetition series, the target never appeared in the same location, but appeared in a unique location on each trial. Participants were told that configurations would repeat for 8 consecutive trials, and that target location would not. The results showed a significant decrease in the efficiency (slope increased from 37 ms/item on the first repetition to about 50 ms/item on the eighth) and an increase in response time as configurations repeated. In this case, memory for past searches seems to have interfered with search. This result may be explained by the idea that locations that were once occupied by distractors are inhibited from one trial to the next.

×
×

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.

×