Abstract
Previous reports suggest that distractor familiarity plays an important role in determining visual search efficiency. However, the specific tasks used in those studies limit the extension of their findings to real-world situations and everyday images. In the present study, subjects engaged in a prolonged period of search experience as a control of their level of familiarity with a large set of target and distractor images. Reaction times and search slopes decreased dramatically over this period, especially for trials with a large target eccentricity and many distractors. Following extended practice, search among familiar distractors was more efficient than search among unfamiliar distractors. Furthermore, we found that familiar targets were located more efficiently than unfamiliar targets and that subjects were faster at locating targets that they had experienced in the majority of the search trials. These results show that prolonged visual experience facilitates processing of both target and distractor items during search.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ball, K. K., Beard, B. L., Roenker, D. L., Miller, R. L., &Griggs, D. S. (1988). Age and visual search: Expanding the useful field of view.Journal of the Optical Society of America A,5, 2210–2219.
Carpenter, R. H. S. (1988).Movements of the eyes (2nd ed.). London: Pion.
Carrasco, M., Evert, D. L., Chang, I., &Katz, S. M. (1995). The eccentricity effect: Target eccentricity affects performance on conjunction searches.Perception & Psychophysics,57, 1241–1261.
Carrasco, M., &Frieder, K. S. (1997). Cortical magnification neutralizes the eccentricity effect in visual search.Vision Research,37, 63–82.
Chun, M. M., &Jiang, Y. (1999). Top-down attentional guidance based on implicit learning of visual search.Psychological Science,10, 360–365.
Duncan, J., &Humphreys, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity.Psychological Review,96, 433–458.
Frith, U. (1974). A curious effect with reversed letters explained by a theory of schema.Perception & Psychophysics,16, 113–116.
Greene, H. H., &Rayner, K. (2001). Eye movements and familiarity effects in visual search.Vision Research,41, 3763–3773.
Karni, A., &Sagi, D. (1991). Where practice makes perfect in texture discrimination: Evidence for primary visual cortex plasticity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,88, 4966–4970.
Kobatake, E., Wang, G., &Tanaka, K. (1998). Effects of shapediscrimination training on the selectivity of inferotemporal cells in adult monkeys.Journal of Neurophysiology,80, 324–330.
Laarni, J., &Nyman, G. (1997). Shape priming in a complex visual search task.Vision Research,37, 2561–2572.
Logothetis, N. K., Pauls, J., &Poggio, T. (1995). Shape representation in the inferior temporal cortex of monkeys.Current Biology,5, 552–563.
Malinowski, P., &Hübner, R. (2001). The effect of familiarity on visual-search performance: Evidence for learned basic features.Perception & Psychophysics,63, 458–463.
Miyashita, Y., Date, A., &Okuno, H. (1993). Configurational encoding of complex visual forms by single neurons of monkey temporal cortex.Neuropsychologia,31, 1119–1131.
Nakayama, K. (1990). The iconic bottleneck and the tenuous link between early visual processing and perception. In C. Blakemore (Ed.),Vision: Coding and efficiency (pp. 411–422). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Pavlovskaya, M., Ring, H., Groswasser, Z., Keren, O., &Hochstein, S. (2001). Visual search in peripheral vision: Learning effects and set-size dependence.Spatial Vision,14, 151–173.
Reicher, G. M., Snyder, C. R. R., &Richards, J. T. (1976). Familiarity of background characters in visual scanning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,2, 522–530.
Richards, J. T., &Reicher, G. M. (1978). The effect of background familiarity in visual search: An analysis of underlying factors.Perception & Psychophysics,23, 499–505.
Rolls, E. T., Baylis, G. C., Hasselmo, M. E., &Nalwa, V. (1989). The effect of learning on the face selective responses of neurons in the cortex in the superior temporal sulcus of the monkey.Experimental Brain Research,76, 153–164.
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M., &Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories.Cognitive Psychology,8, 382–439.
Schneider, W., &Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention.Psychological Review,84, 1–66.
Shen, J., &Reingold, E. M. (2001). Visual search asymmetry: The influence of stimulus familiarity and low-level features.Perception & Psychophysics,63, 464–475.
Shiffrin, R. M., &Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory.Psychological Review,84, 127–190.
Sigala, N., &Logothetis, N. K. (2002). Visual categorization shapes feature selectivity in the primate temporal cortex.Nature,415, 318–320.
Sireteanu, R., &Rettenbach, R. (1995). Perceptual learning in visual search: Fast, enduring, but non-specific.Vision Research,35, 2037–2043.
Sireteanu, R., &Rettenbach, R. (2000). Perceptual learning in visual search generalizes over tasks, locations, and eyes.Vision Research,40, 2925–2949.
Treisman, A. (1982). Perceptual grouping and attention in visual search for features and for objects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception & Performance,8, 194–214.
Treisman, A. (1993). The perception of features and objects. In A. Baddeley & L. Weiskrantz (Eds.),Attention: Selection, awareness and control (pp. 5–35). Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Treisman, A., &Souther, J. (1985). Search asymmetry: A diagnostic for preattentive processing of separable features.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,114, 285–310.
Wang, Q., Cavanagh, P., &Green, M. (1994). Familiarity and pop-out in visual search.Perception & Psychophysics,56, 495–500.
Williams, C. C., Henderson, J. M., &Zacks, R. T. (2005). Incidental visual memory for targets and distractors in visual search.Perception & Psychophysics,67, 816–827.
Wolfe, J. M. (1998). What can 1 million trials tell us about visual search?Psychological Review,9, 33–39.
Wolfe, J. M., O’Neill, P., &Bennett, S. C. (1998). Why are there eccentricity effects in visual search? Visual and attentional hypotheses.Perception & Psychophysics,60, 140–156.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by a grant from the Sloan Foundation, Grant 21002027 from the James S. McDonnell Foundation, and NIH Grant EY014681.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Mruczek, R.E.B., Sheinberg, D.L. Distractor familiarity leads to more efficient visual search for complex stimuli. Perception & Psychophysics 67, 1016–1031 (2005). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193628
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193628