CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 703Visual Attention and Saliency DetectionVisual perception and processing mechanismsNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Guided Search 6.0: an updated model of visual search

Open access
Wolfe, Jeremy M.·2021·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
DOI 10.3758/s13423-020-01859-9PMC PMC8965574
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This paper describes Guided Search 6.0 (GS6), a revised model of visual search. When we encounter a scene, we can see something everywhere. However, we cannot recognize more than a few items at a time. Attention is used to select items so that their features can be "bound" into recognizable objects. Attention is "guided" so that items can be processed in an intelligent order. In GS6, this guidance comes from five sources of preattentive information: (1) top-down and (2) bottom-up feature guidance, (3) prior history (e.g., priming), (4) reward, and (5) scene syntax and semantics. These sources are combined into a spatial "priority map," a dynamic attentional landscape that evolves over the course of search. Selective attention is guided to the most active location in the priority map approximately 20 times per second. Guidance will not be uniform across the visual field. It will favor items near the point of fixation. Three types of functional visual field (FVFs) describe the nature of these foveal biases. There is a resolution FVF, an FVF governing exploratory eye movements, and an FVF governing covert deployments of attention. To be identified as targets or rejected as distractors, items must be compared to target templates held in memory. The binding and recognition of an attended object is modeled as a diffusion process taking > 150 ms/item. Since selection occurs more frequently than that, it follows that multiple items are undergoing recognition at the same time, though asynchronously, making GS6 a hybrid of serial and parallel processes. In GS6, if a target is not found, search terminates when an accumulating quitting signal reaches a threshold. Setting of that threshold is adaptive, allowing feedback about performance to shape subsequent searches. Simulation shows that the combination of asynchronous diffusion and a quitting signal can produce the basic patterns of response time and error data from a range of search experiments.

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/s13423-020-01859-9

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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?

  • When target and background differ over multiple perceptual dimensions, search becomes intentional and guided by a target template.

    “Our search becomes guided by a target template: Targets are defined by a multidimensional combination of features that segregate them from irrelevant stimuli or the background [10] .”

    From Enhancing human-AI collaboration: The case of colonoscopy (2024) · cites this paper as [10]

    In “Search Templates and Hybrid Search” (page unavailable), Wolfe says target features can guide attention away from irrelevant items. But the paper calls the representation that guides search a “guiding template” and distinguishes it from the “target template,” which is used to identify a selected item. It also does not require differences across multiple dimensions for search to be guided. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 252

  1. Anderson BA, Laurent PA, & Yantis S (2011). Value-driven attentional capture. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(25), 10367– 10371. PMC3121816 21646524
  2. Anderson NC, Ort E, Kruijne W, Meeter M, & Donk M (2015). It depends on when you look at it: Salience influences eye movements in natural scene viewing and search early in time. Journal of Vision, 15(5), 9– 9. doi: 10.1167/15.5.9 26067527 · DOI
  3. Awh E, Belopolsky AV, & Theeuwes J (2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: a failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16(8), 437– 443. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2012.06.010 22795563 PMC3426354 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Bahle B, Thayer DD, Mordkoff JT, & Hollingworth A (2019). The architecture of working memory: Features from multiple remembered objects produce parallel, coactive guidance of attention in visual search. J Exp Psychol Gen. doi: 10.1037/xge0000694 PMC7136148 31589068 · DOI
  5. Ball KK, Beard BL, Roenker DL, Miller RL, & Griggs DS (1988). Age and visual search: expanding the useful field of view. J. Optical Society of America - A, 5(12), 2210– 2219. 3230491
  6. Bauer B, Jolicreur P, & Cowan WB (1996). Visual search for colour targets that are or are not linearly-separable from distractors. Vision Research, 36(10), 1439– 1466. 8762762
  7. Bauer B, Jolicoeur P, & Cowan WB (1998). The linear separability effect in color visual search: Ruling out the additive color hypothesis. Perception and Psychophysics, 60(6), 1083– 1093. 9718965
  8. Becker SI (2010). The role of target-distractor relationships in guiding attention and the eyes in visual search. J Exp Psychol Gen, 139(2), 247– 265. doi: 10.1037/a0018808 2010-08363-003 [pii] 20438251 · DOI
  9. Becker SI, Harris AM, York A, & Choi J (2017). Conjunction Search is Relational: Behavioral and Electrophysiological Evidence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(10), 1828– 1842. 28967786
  10. Berbaum KS, Franken EA Jr., Dorfman DD, Rooholamini SA, Kathol MH, Barloon TJ, (1990). Satisfaction of search in diagnostic radiology. Invest Radiol, 25(2), 133– 140. 2312249
  11. Berbaum KS, Krupinski EA, Schartz KM, Caldwell RT, Madsen MT, Hur S, (2015). Satisfaction of Search in Chest Radiography 2015. Academic Radiology. doi: 10.1016/j.acra.2015.07.011 PMC4609286 26363824 · DOI
  12. Berlin L (2007). Radiologic Errors and Malpractice: A Blurry Distinction. American Journal of Roentgenology, 189(3), 517– 522. doi: 10.2214/ajr.07.2209 17715094 · DOI
  13. Biederman I (1977). On processing information from a glance at a scene: some implications for a syntax and semantics of visual processing. Paper presented at the Proceedings of the ACM/SIGGRAPH Workshop on User-oriented Design of Interactive Graphics Systems, Pittsburgh, PA.
  14. Biggs AT (2017). Getting satisfied with “satisfaction of search”: How to measure errors during multiple-target visual search. Atten Percept Psychophys, 79(5), 1352– 1365. 28353059
  15. Bisley JW, & Mirpour K (2019). The neural instantiation of a priority map. Current Opinion in Psychology, 29, 108– 112. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.01.002 30731260 PMC6625938 · DOI
  16. Boettcher SEP, Draschkow D, Dienhart E, & Võ MLH (2018). Anchoring visual search in scenes: Assessing the role of anchor objects on eye movements during visual search. Journal of Vision, 18(13), 11– 11. doi: 10.1167/18.13.11 30561493 · DOI
  17. Bogacz R, Usher M, Zhang J, & McClelland JL (2007). Extending a biologically inspired model of choice: multi-alternatives, nonlinearity and value-based multidimensional choice. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci, 362(1485), 1655– 1670. doi: 50V10186675418M1 [pii] 10.1098/rstb.2007.2059 17428774 PMC2440778 · DOI
  18. Bravo M, & Nakayama K (1992). The role of attention in different visual search tasks. Perception and Psychophysics, 51, 465– 472. 1594436
  19. Brown SD, & Heathcote A (2008). The simplest complete model of choice response time: Linear ballistic accumulation. Cognitive Psychology, 57(3), 153– 178. 18243170
  20. Brügger A, Richter K-F, & Fabrikant SI (2019). How does navigation system behavior influence human behavior? Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 4(1), 5. doi: 10.1186/s41235-019-0156-5 30758681 PMC6374493 · DOI
  21. Buetti S, Cronin DA, Madison AM, Wang Z, & Lleras A (2016). Towards a Better Understanding of Parallel Visual Processing in Human Vision: Evidence for Exhaustive Analysis of Visual Information. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(6), 672– 707. doi: 10.1037/xge0000163 27077758 · DOI
  22. Buetti S, Xu J, & Lleras A (2019). Predicting how color and shape combine in the human visual system to direct attention. Scientific Reports, 9(1), 20258. doi: 10.1038/s41598-019-56238-9 31889066 PMC6937264 · DOI
  23. Burr D, & Ross J (2008). A visual sense of number. Curr Biol, 18(6), 425– 428. doi: S0960-9822(08)00238-8 [pii] 18342507
  24. Buschman TJ, & Miller EK (2009). Serial, Covert Shifts of Attention during Visual Search Are Reflected by the Frontal Eye Fields and Correlated with Population Oscillations. Neuron, 63, 386– 396. 19679077 PMC2758537
  25. Cain MS, Adamo SH, & Mitroff SR (2013). A taxonomy of errors in multiple-target visual search. Visual Cognition, 21(7), 899– 921. doi: 10.1080/13506285.2013.843627 · DOI
  26. Carlisle NB, Arita JT, Pardo D, & Woodman GF (2011). Attentional templates in visual working memory. The Journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 31(25), 9315– 9322. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1097-11.2011 21697381 PMC3147306 · DOI
  27. Carrasco M, & Frieder KS (1997). Cortical magnification neutralizes the eccentricity effect in visual search. Vision Research, 37(1), 63– 82. 9068831
  28. Carrasco M, Evert DL, Chang I, & Katz SM (1995). The eccentricity effect: Target eccentricity affects performance on conjunction searches. Perception and Psychophysics, 57(8), 1241– 1261. 8539099
  29. Cho J, & Chong SC (2019). Search termination when the target is absent: The prevalence of coarse processing and its intertrial influence. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance., on line. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000686 31393149 · DOI
  30. Chun MM (2000). Contextual cueing of visual attention. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 4, 170– 178. 10782102
  31. Chun MM, & Wolfe JM (1996). Just say no: How are visual searches terminated when there is no target present? Cognitive Psychology, 30, 39– 78. 8635311
  32. Chun M, & Jiang Y (1998). Contextual cuing: Implicit learning and memory of visual context guides spatial attention. Cognitive Psychology, 36, 28– 71. 9679076
  33. Conci M, Deichsel C, Müller HJ, & Töllner T (2019). Feature guidance by negative attentional templates depends on search difficulty. Visual Cognition, 1– 10. doi: 10.1080/13506285.2019.1581316 · DOI
  34. Cowan N (1988). Evolving conceptions of memory storage, selective attention, and their mutual constraints within the human information-processing system. Psychol Bull, 104(2), 163– 191. 3054993
  35. Cowan N (1995). Attention and Memory: An integrated framework. New York: Oxford U press.
  36. Cunningham CA, & Egeth HE (2016). Taming the White Bear: Initial Costs and Eventual Benefits of Distractor Inhibition. Psychological Science, 27(4), 476– 485. doi: 10.1177/0956797615626564 26893292 · DOI
  37. Cunningham CA, & Wolfe JM (2014). The role of object categories in hybrid visual and memory search. J Exp Psychol Gen, 143(4), 1585– 1599. doi: 10.1037/a0036313 24661054 PMC4115034 · DOI
  38. De Vries JP, Van der Stigchel S, Hooge ITC, & Verstraten FAJ (2017). The Lifetime of Salience Extends Beyond the Initial Saccade. Perception, 0301006617735726. doi: 10.1177/0301006617735726 29183222 · DOI
  39. Di Lollo V (2012). The feature- binding problem is an ill-posed problem Trends Cogn Sci, 16(6), 317– 321. 22595013
  40. Di Lollo V, Enns JT, & Rensink RA (2000). Competition for consciousness among visual events: The psychophysics of reentrant visual processes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 129(4), 481– 507. 11142864
  41. Donk M, & Theeuwes J (2003). Prioritizing selection of new elements: bottom-up versus top-down control. Percept Psychophys, 65(8), 1231– 1242. 14710958
  42. Donk M, & van Zoest W (2008). Effects of salience are short-lived. Psychological Science, 19(7), 733– 739. 18727790
  43. Drew T, Boettcher SP, & Wolfe JM (2015). Searching while loaded: Visual working memory does not interfere with hybrid search efficiency but hybrid search uses working memory capacity. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 23(1), 201– 212. doi: 10.3758/s13423-015-0874-8 PMC4925167 26055755 · DOI
  44. Drew T, Vo ML-H, Olwal A, Jacobson F, Seltzer SE, & Wolfe JM (2013). Scanners and drillers: Characterizing expert visual search through volumetric images. Journal of Vision, 13(10). doi: 10.1167/13.10.3 PMC3736761 23922445 · DOI
  45. Duncan J, & Humphreys GW (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96, 433– 458. 2756067
  46. Ebner L, Tall M, Choudhury KR, Ly DL, Roos JE, Napel S, (2017). Variations in the functional visual field for detection of lung nodules on chest computed tomography: Impact of nodule size, distance, and local lung complexity. Medical Physics, 44(7), 3483– 3490. doi: 10.1002/mp.12277 28419484 · DOI
  47. Eckstein M, Beutter B, Bartroff L, & Stone L (1999). Guided search vs. signal detection theory in target localization tasks. [ARVO abstract]. Investigative Ophthalmology & Visual Science, 40(4), S346.
  48. Edwards JD, Fausto BA, Tetlow AM, Corona RT, & Valdés EG (2018). Systematic review and meta-analyses of useful field of view cognitive training. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 84(Supplement C), 72– 91. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.11.004 29175362 · DOI
  49. Egeth HE, Virzi RA, & Garbart H (1984). Searching for conjunctively defined targets. J. Exp. Psychol: Human Perception and Performance, 10, 32– 39. 6242762
  50. Einhauser W, Spain M, & Perona P (2008). Objects predict fixations better than early saliency. Journal of Vision, 8(14), 1– 26. 19146319
  51. Evans KK, & Treisman A (2005). Perception of objects in natural scenes: is it really attention free? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 31(6), 1476– 1492. 16366803
  52. Folk CL, & Gibson BS (2001). Attraction, distraction and action: multiple perspectives on attentional capture. Amsterdam; New York:: Elsevier / (Advances in psychology).
  53. Foster DH, & Ward PA (1991a). Asymmetries in oriented-line detection indicate two orthogonal filters in early vision. Proceedings of the Royal Society (London B), 243, 75– 81. 1673245
  54. Foster DH, & Ward PA (1991b). Horizontal-vertical filters in early vision predict anomalous line-orientation frequencies. Proceedings of the Royal Society (London B), 243, 83– 86. 1673246
  55. Foster DH, & Westland S (1998). Multiple groups of orientation-selective visual mechanisms underlying rapid oriented-line detection. Proc. R. Soc. Lond. B, 265, 1605– 1613. PMC1689336 9753784
  56. Fougnie D, Cormiea SM, Zhang J, Alvarez GA, & Wolfe JM (2015). Winter is coming: How humans forage in a temporally structured environment. Journal of Vision, 15(11), 1– 1. doi: 10.1167/15.11.1 PMC4948597 26237297 · DOI
  57. Frey A, & Bosse M-L (2018). Perceptual span, visual span, and visual attention span: Three potential ways to quantify limits on visual processing during reading. Visual Cognition, 26(6), 412– 429. doi: 10.1080/13506285.2018.1472163 · DOI
  58. Friedman-Hill SR, & Wolfe JM (1995). Second-order parallel processing: Visual search for the odd item in a subset. J. Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(3), 531– 551. 7790832
  59. Friedman-Hill SR, & Wolfe JM (1995). Second-order parallel processing: Visual search for the odd item in a subset. J. Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(3), 531– 551. 7790832
  60. Gabbay C, Zivony A, & Lamy D (2019). Splitting the attentional spotlight? Evidence from attentional capture by successive events. Visual Cognition, 1– 19. doi: 10.1080/13506285.2019.1617377 · DOI
  61. Geng JJ, DiQuattro NE, & Helm J (2017). Distractor probability changes the shape of the attentional template. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 43(12), 1993– 2007. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000430 28425732 · DOI
  62. Gibson BS, Li L, Skow E, Brown K, & Cooke L (2000). Searching for one versus two identical targets: When visual search has a memory. Psychological Science, 11(4), 324– 327. 11273393
  63. Gil-Gómez de Liaño B, Quirós-Godoy M, Pérez-Hernández E, & Wolfe JM (2020). Efficiency and accuracy of visual search develop at different rates from early childhood through early adulthood. [journal article]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27, 504– 511. doi: 10.3758/s13423-020-01712-z 32043221 PMC7300101 · DOI
  64. Goddard P, Leslie A, Jones A, Wakeley C, & Kabala J (2001). Error in radiology. Br J Radiol, 74(886), 949– 951. 11675313
  65. Greene MR, & Oliva A (2009). The briefest of glances: the time course of natural scene understanding. Psychol Sci, 20(4), 464– 472. 19399976 PMC2742770
  66. Grubert A, & Eimer M (2018). The Time Course of Target Template Activation Processes during Preparation for Visual Search. Journal of Neuroscience, 38(44), 9527– 9538. doi: 10.1523/jneurosci.0409-18.2018 30242053 PMC6705999 · DOI
  67. Gunseli E, Meeter M, & Olivers CNL (2014). Is a search template an ordinary working memory? Comparing electrophysiological markers of working memory maintenance for visual search and recognition. Neuropsychologia, 60, 29– 38. doi: 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2014.05.012 24878275 · DOI
  68. Gur D, Rockette HE, Armfield DR, Blachar A, Bogan JK, Brancatelli G, (2003). Prevalence effect in a laboratory environment. Radiology, 228(1), 10– 14. doi: 10.1148/radiol.2281020709 228/1/10 [pii] 12832568 · DOI
  69. Hadnett-Hunter J, Nicolaou G, O’neill E, & Proulx M (2019). The Effect of Task on Visual Attention in Interactive Virtual Environments. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept, 16(3), 1– 17. doi: 10.1145/3352763 · DOI
  70. Harris AM, & Remington RW (2020). Late guidance resolves the search slope paradox in contextual cueing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 27(6), 1300– 1308. doi: 10.3758/s13423-020-01788-7 32779117 · DOI
  71. Harris A, Becker S, & Remington R (2015). Capture by colour: Evidence for dimension- specific singleton capture. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 77(7), 2305– 2321. doi: 10.3758/s13414-015-0927-0 26018643 · DOI
  72. Henderson JM, & Ferreira F (2004). Scene perception for psycholinguists. In Henderson JM & Ferreira F (Eds.), The interface of language, vision, and action: Eye movements and the visual world (pp. 1– 58). New York: Psychology Press.
  73. Henderson JM, & Hayes TR (2017). Meaning Guides Attention in Real-World Scenes. Nature Human Behavior, 1, 743– 747. doi: doi.org/ 10.1038/s41562-017-0208-0 PMC7455012 31024101 · DOI
  74. Hochstein S, & Ahissar M (2002). View from the top: Hierarchies and reverse hierarchies in the visual system. Neuron, 36, 791– 804. 12467584
  75. Hollingworth A, & Luck SJ (2009). The role of visual working memory (VWM) in the control of gaze during visual search. Atten Percept Psychophys, 71(4), 936– 949. doi: 71/4/936 [pii] 10.3758/APP.71.4.936 19429970 PMC2776634 · DOI
  76. Hong S-K (2005). Human stopping strategies in multiple-target search. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 35, 1– 12.
  77. Hooge IT, Over EA, van Wezel RJ, & Frens MA (2005). Inhibition of return is not a foraging facilitator in saccadic search and free viewing. Vision Res, 45(14), 1901– 1908. 15797779
  78. Horowitz TS (2017). Prevalence in Visual Search: From the Clinic to the Lab and Back Again. Japanese Psychological Research, 59(2), 65– 108. doi: 10.1111/jpr.12153 · DOI
  79. Horowitz TS, & Wolfe JM (1998). Visual search has no memory. Nature, 394(Aug 6), 575– 577. 9707117
  80. Horowitz TS, & Wolfe JM (2005). Visual Search: The role of memory for rejected distractors. In Itti L, Rees G & Tsotsos J (Eds.), Neurobiology of attention (pp. 264– 268). San Diego, CA: Academic Press / Elsevier.
  81. Huang L (2020). Space of preattentive shape features. Journal of Vision, 20(4), 10– 10. doi: 10.1167/jov.20.4.10 PMC7405702 32315405 · DOI
  82. Hulleman J (2020). Quantitative and qualitative differences in the top-down guiding attributes of visual search. J. Exp. Psychol: Human Perception and Performance, on-line. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000764 32378936 · DOI
  83. Hulleman J, & Olivers CNL (2017). The impending demise of the item in visual search. Behav Brain Sci, 1– 20. doi: doi: 10.1017/S0140525X15002794, e132 26673054 · DOI
  84. Hulleman J, Lund K, & Skarratt PA (2019). Medium vs. difficult visual search: how a quantitative change in the functional visual field leads to a qualitative difference in performance. Atten Percept Psychophys, on-line first, 1– 22. 31267479 PMC6994550
  85. Hung CP, Kreiman G, Poggio T, & DiCarlo JJ (2005). Fast readout of object identity from macaque inferior temporal cortex. Science, 310(5749), 863– 866. doi: 10.1126/science.1117593 16272124 · DOI · Paper page
  86. Itti L, & Koch C (2000). A saliency-based search mechanism for overt and covert shifts of visual attention. Vision Res, 40(10-12), 1489– 1506. 10788654
  87. Johnson JS, & Olshausen BA (2003). Timecourse of neural signatures of object recognition. Journal of Vision, 3(7), 499– 512. 14507255
  88. Jonides J, & Yantis S (1988). Uniqueness of abrupt visual onset in capturing attention. Perception and Psychophysics, 43, 346– 354. 3362663
  89. Kaptein NA, Theeuwes J, & Van der Heijden AHC (1995). Search for a conjunctively defined target can be selectively limited to a color-defined subset of elements. J. Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 21(5), 1053– 1069.
  90. Klein R (1988). Inhibitory tagging system facilitates visual search. Nature, 334, 430– 431. 3405288
  91. Klein RM (2000). Inhibition of return. Trends Cogn Sci, 4(4), 138– 147. 10740278
  92. Koch C, & Ullman S (1985). Shifts in selective visual attention: towards the underlying neural circuitry. Hum Neurobiol, 4(4), 219– 227. 3836989
  93. Kong G, Alais D, & Van der Berg E (2016). An Investigation of Linear Separability in Visual Search for Color Suggests a Role of Recognizability. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, in press. 27322635
  94. Kong G, Alais D, & Van der Berg E (2017). Orientation categories used in guidance of attention in visual search can differ in strength. Atten Percept Psychophys, 79(8), 2246– 2256. 28733837
  95. Koopman BO (1956a). The Theory of Search. I. Kinematic Bases. Operations Research,, 4(3), 324– 346.
  96. Koopman BO (1956b). The Theory of Search. II. Target Detection. Operations Research,, 4(5), 503– 531.
  97. Koopman BO (1957). The Theory of Search. III. The Optimum Distribution of Searching Effort. Operations Research,, 5(5), 613– 626.
  98. Kriegeskorte N, & Douglas PK (2018). Cognitive computational neuroscience. Nature Neuroscience, 21(9), 1148– 1160. doi: 10.1038/s41593-018-0210-5 30127428 PMC6706072 · DOI · Paper page
  99. Kristjansson A (2000). In search of rememberance: Evidence for memory in visual search. [ms 99-182]. Psychological Science, 11(4), 328– 332. 11273394
  100. Kristjansson A (2015). Reconsidering visual search. i-Perception, 6(6). doi: 10.1177/2041669515614670 PMC4975113 27551357 · DOI
  101. Kristjansson A, & Egeth HE (2020). How feature integration theory integrated cognitive psychology, neurophysiology, and psychophysics. Atten Percept Psychophys, in press. 31290134
  102. Kristjansson A, & Johannesson OI (2014). How priming in visual search affects response time distributions: Analyses with ex-Gaussian fits. Atten Percept Psychophys, 76(8), 2199– 2211. doi: 10.3758/s13414-014-0735-y 25073610 · DOI
  103. Kristjansson Å, Johannesson OI, & Thornton IM (2014). Common Attentional Constraints in Visual Foraging. PLoS ONE, 9(6), e100752. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0100752 24964082 PMC4071029 · DOI
  104. Kristjánsson T, Thornton IM, & Kristjánsson Á (2018). Time limits during visual foraging reveal flexible working memory templates. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(6), 827– 835. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000517 29809049 · DOI
  105. Kristjánsson T, Thornton IM, Chetverikov A, & Kristjansson A. r. (2018). Dynamics of visual attention revealed in foraging tasks. Cognition, ms. 31476612
  106. Kunar MA, Flusberg SJ, name Horowitz TS, & Wolfe JM (2007). Does Contextual Cueing Guide the Deployment of Attention? J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 33(4), 816– 828. 17683230 PMC2922990
  107. Kunar MA, Humphreys GW, & Smith KJ (2003). History matters: the preview benefit in search is not onset capture. Psychol Sci, 14(2), 181– 185. 12661682
  108. Kunar MA, Humphreys GW, Smith KJ, & Hulleman J (2003). What is "marked" in visual marking? Evidence for effects of configuration in preview search. Percept Psychophys, 65(6), 982– 996. 14528904
  109. Kunar MA, Shapiro KL, & Humphreys GW (2006). Top-up search and the attentional blink: A two-stage account of the preview effect in search. Visual Cognition, 13(6), 677– 699.
  110. Kundel HL (2000). Disease prevalence and the index of detectability: a survey of studies of lung cancer detection by chest radiography. In Krupinski EA (Ed.), Medical Imaging 2000: Image Perception and Performance (Vol. 3981, pp. 135– 144).
  111. Kundel HL, Nodine CF, & Carmody D (1978). Visual scanning, pattern recognition and decision-making in pulmonary nodule detection. Invest Radiol, 13(3), 175– 181. 711391
  112. Lago M, Sechopoulos I, Bochud F, & Eckstein M (2020). Measurement of the useful field of view for single slices of different imaging modalities and targets. Journal of Medical Imaging, 7(2), 022411. 32064303 PMC7007584
  113. Lagroix HEP, Yanko MR, & Spalek TM (2018). Transition From Feature-Search to Singleton-Detection Strategies in Visual Search: The Role of Number of Target-Defining Options. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 44(3), 387– 397. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000467 (Supplemental) 28816477 · DOI
  114. Lamy D, & Egeth HE (2003). Attentional capture in singleton-detection and feature-search modes. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, 29(5), 1003– 1020. 14585019
  115. Lee JH, Whittington MA, & Kopell NJ (2013). Top-Down Beta Rhythms Support Selective Attention via Interlaminar Interaction: A Model. Plos Computational Biology, 9(8). doi: 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003164 PMC3738471 23950699 · DOI
  116. Lee J, & Shomstein S (2013). Reward-Based Transfer From Bottom-Up to Top-Down Search Tasks. Psychological Science. doi: 10.1177/0956797613509284 PMC3933189 24335604 · DOI · Paper page
  117. Leite FP, & Ratcliff R (2010). Modeling reaction time and accuracy of multiple-alternative decisions. Atten Percept Psychophys, 72(1), 246– 273. doi: 72/1/246 [pii] 10.3758/APP.72.1.246 20045893 PMC2805113 · DOI
  118. Leonard CJ, & Egeth HE (2008). Attentional guidance in singleton search: An examination of top-down, bottom-up, and intertrial factors. Visual Cognition, 16(8), 1078– 1091. doi: 10.1080/13506280701580698 · DOI
  119. Levi DM (2008). Crowding-An essential bottleneck for object recognition: A mini-review. Vision Res, 48(5), 635– 654. 18226828 PMC2268888
  120. Levi DM, Klein SA, & Aitsebaomo AP (1985). Vernier acuity, crowding and cortical magnification. Vision Research, 25, 963– 977. 4049746
  121. Li FF, VanRullen R, Koch C, & Perona P (2002). Rapid natural scene categorization in the near absence of attention. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A, 99(14), 9596– 9601. 12077298 PMC123186
  122. Li Z (2002). A salience map in primary visual cortex. Trends Cogn Sci, 6(1), 9– 16. 11849610
  123. Liesefeld HR, & Müller HJ (2019). Distractor handling via dimension weighting. Current Opinion in Psychology, 29, 160– 167. doi: 10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.03.003 30954779 · DOI
  124. Liesefeld HR, Liesefeld AM, Pollmann S, & Müller HJ (2019). Biasing Allocations of Attention via Selective Weighting of Saliency Signals: Behavioral and Neuroimaging Evidence for the Dimension-Weighting Account. In Hodgson T (Ed.), Processes of Visuospatial Attention and Working Memory (pp. 87– 113). Cham: Springer International Publishing. 30588570
  125. Liesefeld H, & Mueller HJ (2020). A theoretical attempt to revive the serial/parallel-search dichotomy. Atten Percept Psychophys, 82, 228– 245. 31321649
  126. Lindsey DT, Brown AM, Reijnen E, Rich AN, Kuzmova Y, & Wolfe JM (2010). Color Channels, not Color Appearance or Color Categories, Guide Visual Search for Desaturated Color Targets. Psychol Sci, 21(9), 1208– 1214. doi: 10.1177/0956797610379861 20713637 PMC3050514 · DOI
  127. Lleras A, Wang Z, Ng GJP, Ballew K, Xu J, & Buetti S (2020). A target contrast signal theory of parallel processing in goal-directed search. Atten Percept Psychophys, in press. 32026450
  128. Longstaffe KA, Hood BM, & Gilchrist ID (2014). The influence of cognitive load on spatial search performance. Atten Percept Psychophys, 76(1), 49– 63. doi: 10.3758/s13414-013-0575-1 24170380 · DOI
  129. MacInnes WJ, Hunt AR, Hilchey M, & Klein R (2014). Driving forces in free visual search: an ethology. [APP11_274]. Atten Percept Psychophys, in press. 24385137
  130. Mack A, & Rock I (1998). Inattentional Blindness. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  131. Madison A, Lleras A, & Buetti S (2018). The role of crowding in parallel search: Peripheral pooling is not responsible for logarithmic efficiency in parallel search. Atten Percept Psychophys, 80(2), 352– 373. doi: 10.3758/s13414-017-1441-3 29143194 · DOI
  132. Maljkovic V, & Nakayama K (1994). Priming of popout: I. Role of features. Memory & Cognition, 22(6), 657– 672. 7808275
  133. McLeod P, Driver J, & Crisp J (1988). Visual search for conjunctions of movement and form is parallel. Nature, 332, 154– 155. 3347252
  134. Mickes L, Wixted JT, & Wais PE (2007). A direct test of the unequal-variance signal detection model of recognition memory. Psychon Bull Rev, 14(5), 858– 865. 18087950
  135. Miller EK, & Buschman TJ (2013). Cortical circuits for the control of attention. Curr Opin Neurobiol, 23(2), 216– 222. doi: 10.1016/j.conb.2012.11.011 23265963 PMC3709832 · DOI
  136. Moore CM, & Wolfe JM (2001). Getting beyond the serial/parallel debate in visual search: A hybrid approach. In Shapiro K (Ed.), The Limits of Attention: Temporal Constraints on Human Information Processing (pp. 178– 198). Oxford: Oxford U. Press.
  137. Moran R, Zehetleitner MH, Mueller HJ, & Usher M (2013). Competitive Guided Search: Meeting the challenge of benchmark RT distributions. J of Vision, 13(8), pii: 24. doi: J Vis. 2013 Jul 25;13(8). pii: 24. doi: 10.1167/13.8.24. 23887047 · DOI
  138. Moran R, Zehetleitner M, Liesefeld H, Müller H, & Usher M (2015). Serial vs. parallel models of attention in visual search: accounting for benchmark RT-distributions. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1– 16. doi: 10.3758/s13423-015-0978-1 26635097 · DOI
  139. Motter BC, & Simoni DA (2008). Changes in the functional visual field during search with and without eye movements. Vision Research, 48(22), 2382– 2393. 18722398
  140. Nagy, & Cone. (1993). Asymmetries in visual search as a function of color differences. Investigative Ophthalmology and Visual Science, 34(4), 1235.
  141. Nagy AL, & Sanchez RR (1990). Critical color differences determined with a visual search task. J. Optical Society of America - A, 7(7), 1209– 1217. 2370588
  142. Nagy AL, Sanchez RR, & Hughes TC (1990). Visual search for color differences with foveal and peripheral vision. J. Optical Society of America - A, 7(10), 1995– 2001. 2231109
  143. Nakayama K, & Silverman GH (1986). Serial and parallel processing of visual feature conjunctions. Nature, 320, 264– 265. 3960106
  144. Neider MB, & Zelinsky GJ (2008). Exploring set size effects in scenes: Identifying the objects of search. Visual Cognition, 16(1), 1 – 10.
  145. Neider MB, & Zelinsky GJ (2011). Cutting through the clutter: Searching for targets in evolving complex scenes. Journal of Vision, 11(14). doi: 10.1167/11.14.7 22159628 · DOI
  146. Nodine CF, Mello-Thoms C, Kundel HL, & Weinstein SP (2002). Time course of perception and decision making during mammographic interpretation. AJR Am J Roentgenol, 179(4), 917– 923. 12239037
  147. Nothdurft HC (2000). Salience from feature contrast: variations with texture density. Vision Res, 40(23), 3181– 3200. 11008137
  148. Ogawa H, Takeda Y, & Yagi A (2002). Inhibitory tagging on randomly moving objects. Psychol Sci, 13(2), 125– 129. 11933995
  149. Olds ES, & Fockler KA (2004). Does previewing one stimulus feature help conjunction search? Perception, 33(2), 195– 216. 15109162
  150. Oliva A (2005). Gist of the scene. In Itti L, Rees G & Tsotsos J (Eds.), Neurobiology of attention (pp. 251– 257). San Diego, CA: Academic Press / Elsevier.
  151. Olivers CN, Peters J, Houtkamp R, & Roelfsema PR (2011). Different states in visual working memory: when it guides attention and when it does not. Trends Cogn Sci, 15(7), 327– 334. doi: S1364-6613(11)00085-4 [pii] 10.1016/j.tics.2011.05.004 21665518 · DOI
  152. Olzak LA, & Thomas JP (1986). Seeing spatial patterns. In Boff KR, Kaufmann L & Thomas JP (Eds.), Handbook of Perception and Human Performance (pp. Chap. 7). NY, NY: Wiley and Sons.
  153. Palmer EM, Horowitz TS, Torralba A, & Wolfe JM (2009). What are the Shapes of Response Time Distributions in Visual Search?. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, submitted Aug 09. PMC3062635 21090905
  154. Palmer EM, Van Wert MJ, Horowitz TS, & Wolfe JM (2019). Measuring the Time Course of Selection During Visual Search. Atten Percept Psychophys, 81(1), 47– 60. doi: doi: 10.3758/s13414-018-1596-6 30242674 · DOI
  155. Palmer J, Verghese P, & Pavel M (2000). The psychophysics of visual search. Vision Res, 40(10-12), 1227– 1268. 10788638
  156. Pedziwiatr MA, Wallis TSA, Kümmerer M, & Teufel C (2019). Meaning maps and deep neural networks are insensitive to meaning when predicting human fixations. Journal of Vision, 19(10), 253c– 253c. doi: 10.1167/19.10.253c · DOI
  157. Pereira EJ, & Castelhano MS (2019). Attentional capture is contingent on scene region: Using surface guidance framework to explore attentional mechanisms during search. [journal article]. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 26(4), 1273– 1281. doi: 10.3758/s13423-019-01610-z 31161527 · DOI
  158. Peterson MS, Kramer AF, Wang RF, Irwin DE, & McCarley JS (2001). Visual search has memory. Psychological Science, 12(4), 287– 292. 11476094
  159. Posner MI (1980). Orienting of attention. Quart. J. Exp. Psychol, 32, 3– 25. 7367577
  160. Posner MI, & Cohen Y (1984). Components of attention. In Bouma H & Bouwhuis DG (Eds.), Attention and Performance X (pp. 55– 66). Hillside, NJ: Erlbaum.
  161. Quinlan PT, & Humphreys GW (1987). Visual search for targets defined by combinations of color, shape, and size: An examination of the task constraints on feature and conjunction searches. Perception and Psychophysics, 41, 455– 472. 3601628
  162. Rajsic J, Ouslis NE, Wilson DE, & Pratt J (2017). Looking sharp: Becoming a search template boosts precision and stability in visual working memory. [journal article]. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 79(6), 1643– 1651. doi: 10.3758/s13414-017-1342-5 28537011 · DOI
  163. Ramamoorthy CV, & Li HF (1977). Pipelined Architecture. Computing Surveys, 0(1), 61– 102.
  164. Ratcliff R (1978). A theory of memory retrieval. Psych. Review, 85(2), 59– 108.
  165. Rensink RA (2000). Seeing, sensing, and scrutinizing. Vision Res, 40(10-12), 1469– 1487. 10788653
  166. Rosenholtz RE (2011). What your visual system sees where you are not looking. In Pappas BERTN (Ed.), Proc. SPIE: Human Vision and Electronic Imaging, XVI,. San Francisco, CA: SPIE.
  167. Rosenholtz RE (2020). What modern vision science reveals about the awareness puzzle: Summary-statistic encoding plus limits on decision complexity underlie the richness of visual perception and its quirky failures. Atten Percept Psychophys. PMC7303063 31970709
  168. Rosenholtz RE, Huang J, & Ehinger KA (2012). Rethinking the role of top-down attention in vision: effects attributable to a lossy representation in peripheral vision. [Hypothesis & Theory]. Frontiers in Psychology, 3. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2012.00013 PMC3272623 22347200 · DOI
  169. Rosenholtz R, Li Y, & Nakano L (2007). Measuring visual clutter. J Vis, 7(2), 1– 22. 18217832
  170. Roskies A (1999). The binding problem. Neuron, 24(1), 7– 9. 10677022
  171. Rothkegel LOM, Schutt HH, Trukenbrod HA, Wichmann FA, & Engbert R (2019). Searchers adjust their eye-movement dynamics to target characteristics in natural scenes. Sci Rep, 9(1), 1635. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-37548-w 30733470 PMC6367441 · DOI
  172. Sanders AF (1963). The selective process in the Functional Visual Field. Assen, NL.: Van Gorcum. 5416864
  173. Sanders AF (1970). Some aspects of the selective process in the functional visual field. Ergonomics, 13(1), 101– 117. 5416864
  174. Schall JD (2019). Accumulators, Neurons, and Response Time. Trends in Neurosciences, 42(12), 848– 860. doi: 10.1016/j.tins.2019.10.001 31704180 PMC6981279 · DOI
  175. Schwarz W, & Miller JO (2016). GSDT: An Integrative Model of Visual Search J. Exp. Psychol: Human Perception and Performance, 42(10), 1654– 1675. doi: Advance online publication. 10.1037/xhp0000247 27336631 · DOI
  176. Scialfa CT, Kline DW, & Lyman BJ (1987). Age differences in target identification as a function of retinal location and noise level: Examination of the useful field of view. Psychology and Aging, 2(1), 14– 19. 3268186
  177. Sekuler R, & Ball K (1986). Visual localization: Age and practice. J. Optical Society of America - A, 3(6), 864– 868. 3734925
  178. Serences JT, & Yantis S (2006). Selective visual attention and perceptual coherence. Trends Cogn Sci, 10(1), 38– 45. 16318922
  179. Shi Z, Allenmark F, Zhu X, Elliott MA, & Müller HJ (2019). To quit or not to quit in dynamic search. Atten Percept Psychophys, in press. 31468326
  180. Shore DI, & Klein RM (2000). On the manifestations of memory in visual search. Spat Vis, 14(1), 59– 75. 11334182
  181. Simons DJ, & Rensink RA (2005). Change blindness: past, present, and future. Trends Cogn Sci, 9(1), 16– 20. 15639436
  182. Sisk CA, Remington RW, & Jiang YV (2019). Mechanisms of contextual cueing: A tutorial review. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(8), 2571– 2589. doi: 10.3758/s13414-019-01832-2 31410759 · DOI
  183. Smith AD, Hood BM, & Gilchrist ID (2010). Probabilistic Cuing in Large-Scale Environmental Search. [Article]. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 36(3), 605– 618. doi: 10.1037/a0018280 20438260 · DOI
  184. Smith TJ, & Henderson JM (2009). Facilitation of return during scene viewing. Visual Cognition, 17(6), 1083 – 1108.
  185. Sterchi Y, Hättenschwiler N, & Schwaninger A (2019). Detection Measures for Visual Inspection of X-ray Images of Passenger Baggage. Atten Percept Psychophys, 81. PMC6647488 30684203
  186. Stilwell BT, & Vecera SP (2019). Learned and cued distractor rejection for multiple features in visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 81(2), 359– 376. doi: 10.3758/s13414-018-1622-8 30421366 · DOI
  187. Stilwell BT, & Vecera SP (2020). Learned distractor rejection in the face of strong target guidance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000757 32391708 · DOI
  188. Theeuwes J (1994). Stimulus-driven capture and attentional set: selective search for color and visual abrupt onsets. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 20(4), 799– 806. 8083635
  189. Theeuwes J (2013). Feature-based attention: it is all bottom-up priming. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 368(1628). doi: 10.1098/rstb.2013.0055 PMC3758198 24018717 · DOI · Paper page
  190. Theeuwes J (2018). Visual Selection: Usually fast and automatic; seldom slow and volitional. J. of Cognition, 1(1), 21. doi: 10.5334/joc.32 PMC6634613 31517202 · DOI
  191. Theeuwes J, Olivers CNL, & Belopolsky A (2010). Stimulus-driven capture and contingent capture. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews-Cognitive Science, 1(6), 872– 881. doi: 10.1002/wcs.83 26271783 · DOI
  192. Townsend JT (2016). A Note on Drawing Conclusions in the Study of Visual Search and the Use of Slopes in Particular. A reply to Kristjansson and Wolfe. i-Perception, ms. PMC5117159 27895884
  193. Treisman A (1996). The binding problem. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 6, 171– 178. 8725958
  194. Treisman A, & Gelade G (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97– 136. 7351125
  195. Treisman A, & Sato S (1990). Conjunction search revisited. J. Exp. Psychol: Human Perception and Performance, 16(3), 459– 478. 2144564
  196. Tuddenham WJ (1962). Visual search, image organization, and reader error in roentgen diagnosis. Studies of the psycho-physiology of roentgen image perception. Radiology, 78, 694– 704. 13923013
  197. Van der Stigchel S, Belopolsky AV, Peters JC, Wijnen JG, Meeter M, & Theeuwes J (2009). The limits of top-down control of visual attention. [Review]. Acta Psychologica, 132(3), 201– 212. doi: 10.1016/j.actpsy.2009.07.001 19635610 · DOI
  198. van Moorselaar D, Theeuwes J, & Olivers CNL (2014). In competition for the attentional template: Can multiple items within visual working memory guide attention? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 40(4), 1450– 1464. doi: 10.1037/a0036229 24730738 · DOI
  199. Vanderkerckhove J, & Tuerlinckx F (2007). Fitting the Ratcliff diffusion model to experimental data. Psych Bulletin & Review, 14(6), 1101– 1126. 18229471
  200. VanRullen R, & Thorpe SJ (2001). Is it a bird? Is it a plane? Ultra-rapid visual categorisation of natural and artifactual objects. Perception, 30(6), 655– 668. 11464555

200 of 252 shown

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wolfe, J. M.
Affiliations
Brigham and Women's Hospital (US)
Corresponding author
Wolfe, Jeremy M.
ORCID
Wolfe, Jeremy M.
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2021-02-05
Volume
28
Issue
4
Pages
1060-1092
ISSN
  • 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-5320
DOI
10.3758/s13423-020-01859-9
PMC
PMC8965574
OpenAlex
W3128536198
Cited by
703
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 144 · 2025: 204 · 2024: 126 · 2023: 108 · 2022: 89 · 2021: 30 · 2020: 1
FWCI
5.27
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Eye Institute (EY017001)
  • NIH, National Cancer Institute (CA207490)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Visual Attention and Saliency Detection
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Visual perception and processing mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
visual search, attention guidance, priority map, preattentive processing, top-down and bottom-up attention, priming, reward, scene semantics, functional visual field, diffusion models, object recognition, reaction time (psychology)
MeSH terms
Attention, Eye Movements, Humans, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Reaction Time, Visual Fields, Visual Perception

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