CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 21Visual perception and processing mechanismsVisual Attention and Saliency DetectionFace Recognition and Perception

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Local and global factors of similarity in visual search

Open access
von Grunau, Michael, Dubé, Stéphane, Galera, Cesar·1994·Perception & Psychophysics
DOI 10.3758/bf03205314
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Effects of the similarity between target and distractors in a visual search task were investigated in several experiments. Both familiar (numerals and letters) and unfamiliar (connected figures in a 5 x 5 matrix) stimuli were used. The observer had to report on the presence or absence of a target among a variable number of homogeneous distractors as fast and as accurately as possible. It was found that physical difference had the same clear effect on processing time for familiar and for unfamiliar stimuli: processing time decreased monotonically with increasing physical difference. Distractors unrelated to the target and those related to the target by a simple transformation (180 degrees rotation, horizontal or vertical reflection) were also compared, while the physical difference was kept constant. For familiar stimuli, transformational relatedness increased processing time in comparison with that for unrelated stimulus pairs. It was further shown in a scaling experiment that this effect could be accounted for by the amount of perceived similarity of the target-distractor pairs. For unfamiliar stimuli, transformational relatedness did have a smaller and less pronounced effect. Various comparable unrelated distractors resulted in a full range of processing times. Results from a similarity scaling experiment correlated well with the outcome of the experiments with unfamiliar stimuli. These results are interpreted in terms of an underlying continuum of perceived similarity as the basis of the speed of visual search, rather than a dichotomy of parallel versus serial processing.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/bf03205314

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. Beck, J. (1966). Effect of onentadon and of shape similarity on perceptual groupingPerception & Psychophysics,1, 300–302 · DOI
  2. Beck, J. (1982) Textural segmentation. In J. Beck (Ed.),Organitation and representation in perception (pp, 285–317. Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum
  3. Neisser, U. (1967).Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
  4. Nothdurft, H.-C. (1990). Texture segmentation is based on local dissimilaritiesInvestigative Ophthalmology & Vassal Science,31 (Suppl), 561.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 21

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
von Grunau, M., Dubé, S., & Galera, C.
Affiliations
Concordia University (CA)
Venue
Perception & Psychophysics
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
1994-09
Volume
55
Issue
5
Pages
575-592
ISSN
  • 0031-5117 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-5962
DOI
10.3758/bf03205314
OpenAlex
W2064227329
Semantic Scholar
08df2f48d92de5f192d27e2e65bb8868d502f42a
Cited by
21
References
37
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Perception & Psychophysics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Face Recognition and Perception
Keywords
visual search, target-distractor similarity, physical difference, perceived similarity, processing time, similarity scaling
MeSH terms
Adult, Attention, Discrimination Learning, Female, Humans, Male, Orientation, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Psychophysics, Reaction Time

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review