Influence of Perceptual Information of Previewing Stimulus on the Target Search Process: An Eye-tracking Study

사전제시 자극의 지각적 정보가 목표자극 탐색에 미치는 영향: 안구추적연구

  • Lee, Donghoon (Department of Psychology, Pusan National University) ;
  • Kim, Shinjung (Department of Cogno-Mechatroincs Engineering, Pusan National University) ;
  • Jeong, Myung Yung (Department of Cogno-Mechatroincs Engineering, Pusan National University)
  • 이동훈 (부산대학교 심리학과) ;
  • 김신정 (부산대학교 인지메카트로닉스공학과) ;
  • 정명영 (부산대학교 인지메카트로닉스공학과)
  • Received : 2014.08.21
  • Accepted : 2014.09.14
  • Published : 2014.09.30

Abstract

People search a certain object or a person so many time in a day. Besides the information about what the target is, perceptual information of the target can influence on the search process. In the current study, using an eye-tracker we aimed to examine whether the perceptual information of previewing target stimuli on the visual search process of the target and the task performance. Participants had to identify the previewing target stimulus presented in the middle of the screen, and then had to search the target among 8 items presented in a circle array, and had to decide whether the size of the target in the search display was same as that of the previewing stimulus. The experimental conditions were divided into 8 within-subject conditions by whether the search display was consisted of all the same size items or different size items (homogeneous search display vs. inhomogeneous search display), by the size of the preview target stimulus, and by the size of the target stimulus in the search display. Research hypothesis is that the size information of the previewing influence on the visual search process of the target and task performance when the items in the search display are in different sizes. In the results of behavioral data analysis, the reaction time showed the main effect of the search display, and the size of the target stimulus in the search display. and the interaction between the size consistency effect of target stimulus and the search display condition. In the results of analysis of eye-movement information, the Initial Saccade to Target Ratio measurement showed the interaction between the size consistency effect of target stimulus and the search display condition as the reaction time measurement did. That is, the size consistency effect of target stimulus only in the inhomogeneous search display condition indicated that participants searched the items in the same size as that of preview target stimulus. Post-hoc analyses revealed that the search and task performance in the inhomogeneous display condition were faster when the target size was consistent, but rather slower when the target size was inconsistent.

Keywords

visual search;searching strategy;perceptual information;eye-movement

Acknowledgement

Supported by : 부산대학교

References

  1. Duncan, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological review, 96(3), 433-458. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.96.3.433
  2. 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 and Performance, 29(2), 483-502. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.29.2.483
  3. Wolfe, J. M. (1994). Guided Search 2.0 A revised model of visual search, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1(2), 202-238. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03200774
  4. Wolfe, J. M., Cave K. R., Franzel, S. L. (1989). Guided search: An alternative to the feature integration model for visual search, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 15(3), 419-433. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.15.3.419
  5. Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S. (2004). What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it?, Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 495-501. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1411
  6. Findlay, J. M. (1997). Saccade target selection in visual search, Vision research, 37, 617-631. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0042-6989(96)00218-0
  7. Scialfa, C. T., Joffe, K. M. (1998). Response times and eye movements in feature and conjunction search as a function of target eccentricity, Perception & Psychophysics, 60(6), 1067-1082. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211940
  8. Williams, D. E., Reingold, E. M. (2001). Preattentive guidance of eye movements during triple conjunction search tasks: The effects of feature discriminability and saccadic amplitude, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 8(3), 476-488. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196182
  9. Chun, M. M., Jiang, Y. (1998). contextual cueing: Implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention, Cognitive Psychology, 36, 28-71. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1998.0681
  10. Chun, M. M., Jiang, Y. (1999). Top-down attentional guidance based on implicit learning of visual covariation, Psychological Science, 10, 360-365. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00168
  11. Henderson, J. M., Weeks Jr, P. A., Hollingworth, A. (1999). The effects of semantic consistency on eye movements during complex scene viewing, Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25(1), 210-228. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.25.1.210
  12. Neider, M. B., Zelinsky, G. J. (2006). Scene context guides eye movements during visual search, Vision Research, 46(5), 614-621. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2005.08.025
  13. Theeuwes, J. (1992). Perceptual selectivity for color and shape, Perception & Psychophysics, 51, 599-606. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03211656
  14. Theeuwes, J. (2004). Top-down search strategies cannot override attentional capture, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 65-70. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206462
  15. Chen, X., Zelinsky, G. J. (2006). Real-world visual search is dominated by top-down guidance, Vision Research, 46(24), 4118-4133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2006.08.008
  16. Yang, H., Zelinsky, G. J. (2009). Visual search is guided to categorically-defined targets, Vision Research, 49(16), 2095-2103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2009.05.017
  17. Konkle, T., & Oliva, A. (2012). A familiar-size Stroop effect: real-world size is an automatic property of object representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38(3), 561-569. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028294
  18. Rubinsten, O., & Henik, A. (2002). Is an ant larger than a lion?. Acta Psychologica, 111(1), 141-154. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0001-6918(02)00047-1
  19. Konkle, T., & Oliva, A. (2012). A real-world size organization of object responses in occipitotemporal cortex. Neuron, 74(6), 1114-1124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.04.036
  20. Konkle, T., & Oliva, A. (2011). Canonical visual size for real-world objects. Journal of experimental psychology: human perception and performance, 37(1), 23-37. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020413
  21. Gregory, R. L. (1997). Knowledge in perception and illusion. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences, 352(1358), 1121-1127. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.1997.0095