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 accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Various factors affect people's ability to identify and attend to a specific stimulus, including the degree of similarity to other items in the environment (von Grünau et al., 1994; Gorbunova, 2017), interest (Renninger and Wozniak, 1985), temporal and physical location of warnings (Frantz and Rhoades, 1993; Wogalter et al., 1995), the task (Welsh et al., 2009), age (Yamaguchi et al., 1995), and”
From Understanding and Resolving Failures in Human-Robot Interaction: Literature Review and Model Development (2018) · cites this paper as von Grünau et al., 1994
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
Hierarchical Clustering Schemes
Johnson, S. C. (1967) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02289588 · Cited by 5,026
Visual search and stimulus similarity.
Duncan, J. S., & Humphreys, G. (1989) · Psychology Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.96.3.433 · Cited by 3,919
Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries.
Treisman, A., & Gormican, S. (1988) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.95.1.15 · Cited by 2,260
Guided search: An alternative to the feature integration model for visual search.
Wolfe, J. M., Cave, K. R., & Franzel, S. L. (1989) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037//0096-1523.15.3.419 · Cited by 2,150
Features and Objects: The Fourteenth Bartlett Memorial Lecture
Treisman, A. (1988) · The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A · doi:10.1080/02724988843000104 · Cited by 1,751
Guided search: An alternative to the feature integration model for visual search.
Wolfe, J. M., Cave, K. R., & Franzel, S. L. (1989) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037/0096-1523.15.3.419 · Cited by 1,416
Boring, E. G., & Woodworth, R. S. (1939) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1416676 · Cited by 1,242
Treisman, A., & Sato, S. (1990) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Human Perception & Performance · doi:10.1037//0096-1523.16.3.459 · Cited by 1,129
Features and Objects in Visual Processing
Treisman, A. (1986) · Scientific American · doi:10.1038/scientificamerican1186-114b · Cited by 806
GUILFORD, J. P. (1954) · Andalas University Repository (Andalas University) · Cited by 440
Research works printed but not linked: 4
- Beck, J. (1966). Effect of onentadon and of shape similarity on perceptual groupingPerception & Psychophysics,1, 300–302 · DOI
- Beck, J. (1982) Textural segmentation. In J. Beck (Ed.),Organitation and representation in perception (pp, 285–317. Hillsdale, NJ Erlbaum
- Neisser, U. (1967).Cognitive psychology. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
- Nothdurft, H.-C. (1990). Texture segmentation is based on local dissimilaritiesInvestigative Ophthalmology & Vassal Science,31 (Suppl), 561.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Honig, S., & Oron-Gilad, T. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00861 · Cited by 338
Eckstein, M. P., Thomas, J. P., Palmer, J. C., & Shimozaki, S. S. (2000) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03212096 · Cited by 271
Exploring the visual world: The neural substrate of spatial orienting
Himmelbach, M., Erb, M., & Karnath, H. (2006) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2006.04.221 · Cited by 70
Barras, C., & Kerzel, D. (2017) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/psyp.12962 · Cited by 63
Negative and positive congruence effects in letters and shapes
van Leeuwen, C., & Lachmann, T. (2004) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03194984 · Cited by 57
Metadata
- Authors
- von Grunau, M., Dubé, S., & Galera, C.
- Affiliations
- Concordia University (CA)
- Venue
- Perception & Psychophysics
- Published
- 1994-09
- Volume
- 55
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 575-592
- ISSN
- 0031-5117 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-5962
- 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
- bronze
- doi.org
- 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
