Abstract
Introduction. The task of visual search involves locating target stimuli among distractors. This task is one of the most popular in attention research. Both the methodology and theoretical understanding of attention mechanisms in this task have undergone significant changes with the development of cognitive psychology. Modern studies focus more on the ecological validity of the stimulus material used and the participant's response methods, while contemporary theoretical models attempt to consider different variations of target stimulus presentation. Theoretical Justification. We examine categorical search, a type of visual search in which target stimuli are specified by category name. We propose a theoretical model for constructing a representation of the target stimulus in categorical search. This type of search is viewed as a two-stage process: the first stage involves selecting a set of objects in the visual field through attentional guidance, and the second stage involves checking these objects for compliance with the attentional template. The verification process entails verbally naming stimuli based on motor program activation. Within this representation of categorical search mechanisms, we also consider empirical data obtained from various task modifications. Special attention is given to the methodology of hybrid search, where participants need to locate several pre-memorized target stimuli. Discussion. It is suggested that hybrid search is guided by one of the representations (likely the first memorized one), followed by sequential comparison of objects to the attentional template representation of the target stimulus. Each of the non-matching objects is sequentially compared with the other representations.
References
Ангельгардт, А. Н., Ануфриева, А. А., Сапронов, Ф. А., Горбунова Е. С. (2024). Нейрофизиологические корреляты процесса зрительного поиска: важна ли категория? Психология. Журнал Высшей школы экономики. (в печати)
Ангельгардт, А. Н., Макаров, И. М., Горбунова, Е. С. (2021). Роль уровня категории при решении задачи гибридного зрительного поиска. Вопросы психологии, 2, 148–158.
Ануфриева, А. А., Горбунова, Е. С. (2022). Аффордансы как часть процесса идентификации объекта в зрительном поиске. Российский психологический журнал, 19(2), 188–200.
Баддли, А., Андерсон, М., Айзенк М. (2011). Память. Питер.
Сапронов, Ф. А., Макаров, И. М., Горбунова, Е. С. Категоризация в гибридном поиске: исследование с использованием регистрации движений глаз. Экспериментальная психология (в печати).
Adamo, S. H., Cain, M. S., & Mitroff, S. R. (2013). Self-induced attentional blink: a cause of errors in multiple-target search. Psychological science, 24(12), 2569–2574. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613497970
Adamo, S. H., Cox, P. H., Kravitz, D. J., & Mitroff, S. R. (2019). How to correctly put the "subsequent" in subsequent search miss errors. Attention, perception & psychophysics, 81(8), 2648–2657. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-019-01802-8
Adamo, S. H., Gereke, B. J., Shomstein, S., & Schmidt, J. (2021). From "satisfaction of search" to "subsequent search misses": a review of multiple-target search errors across radiology and cognitive science. Cognitive research: principles and implications, 6(1), 59. https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-021-00318-w
Baddeley A. D. (2001). Is working memory still working? The American psychologist, 56(11), 851–864. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.56.11.851
Biggs, A. T., Kramer, M. R., & Mitroff, S. R. (2018). Using cognitive psychology research to inform professional visual search operations. Journal of Applied Research in Memory and Cognition, 7(2), 189–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jarmac.2018.04.001
Borghi, A. M., Bonfiglioli, C., Ricciardelli, P., Rubichi, S., & Nicoletti, R. (2007). Do we access object manipulability while we categorize? Evidence from reaction time studies. In A. C. Schalley & D. Khlentzos (Eds.). Mental states, Vol. 1. Evolution, function, nature. John Benjamin’s Publishing Company. https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.92.10bor
Bundesen, C., Habekost, T., & Kyllingsbaek, S. (2005). A neural theory of visual attention: bridging cognition and neurophysiology. Psychological review, 112(2), 291–328. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.112.2.291
Cain, M. S., Adamo, S. H., & Mitroff, S. R. (2013). A taxonomy of errors in multiple-target visual search. Visual Cognition, 21(7), 899–921. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2013.843627
Carlisle, N. B., Arita, J. T., Pardo, D., & Woodman, G. F. (2011). Attentional templates in visual working memory. The Journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience, 31(25), 9315–9322. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1097-11.2011
Clark, A. (2008). Supersizing the Mind: Embodiment, Action, and Cognitive Extension, Philosophy of Mind Series. Oxford University press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195333213.001.0001
Cowan, N. (2008). What are the differences between long-term, short-term, and working memory?. Progress in brain research, 169, 323–338. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0079-6123(07)00020-9
Cowan, N. (2010). The Magical Mystery Four: How is Working Memory Capacity Limited, and Why? Current directions in psychological science, 19(1), 51–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721409359277
Cowan, N. (2019). Short-term memory based on activated long-term memory: A review in response to Norris (2017). Psychological bulletin, 145(8), 822–847. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000199
Cowan, N. (1995). Attention and Memory: An Integrated Framework. Oxford University Press.
Desimone, R., & Duncan, J. (1995). Neural mechanisms of selective visual attention. Annual review of neuroscience, 18, 193–222. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ne.18.030195.00
Drew, T., Boettcher, S. E. P., & Wolfe, J. M. (2017). One visual search, many memory searches: An eye-tracking investigation of hybrid search. Journal of vision, 17(11), 5. https://doi.org/10.1167/17.11.5
Fleck, M. S., Samei, E., & Mitroff, S. R. (2010). Generalized "satisfaction of search": adverse influences on dual-target search accuracy. Journal of experimental psychology. Applied, 16(1), 60–71. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018629
Gilchrist, I. D., North, A., & Hood, B. (2001). Is visual search really like foraging? Perception, 30(12), 1459–1464. https://doi.org/10.1068/p3249
Kahneman, D., Treisman, A., & Gibbs, B. J. (1992). The reviewing of object files: object-specific integration of information. Cognitive psychology, 24(2), 175–219. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(92)90007-o
Maxfield, J. T., Stalder, W. D., & Zelinsky, G. J. (2014). Effects of target typicality on categorical search. Journal of vision, 14(12), 1. https://doi.org/10.1167/14.12.1
Maxfield, J. T., & Zelinsky, G. J. (2012). Searching Through the Hierarchy: How Level of Target Categorization Affects Visual Search. Visual cognition, 20(10), 1153–1163. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2012.735718
Mervis, C. B., & Rosch, E. (1981). Categorization of natural objects. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 89–115. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.000513
Murphy, G. L., & Brownell, H. H. (1985). Category differentiation in object recognition: typicality constraints on the basic category advantage. Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 11(1), 70–84. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.11.1.70
Murphy, G. L., & Smith, E. E. (1982). Basic-level superiority in picture categorization. Journal of Verbal Learning & Verbal Behavior, 21(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(82)90412-1
Osiurak, F., Rossetti, Y., & Badets, A. (2017). What is an affordance? 40 years later. Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews, 77, 403–417. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2017.04.014
Rogers, Y., & Ellis, J. (1994). Distributed Cognition: An Alternative Framework for Analysing and Explaining Collaborative Working. Journal of Information Technology, 9(2), 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1177/026839629400900203
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–605. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9
Rubtsova, O., & Gorbunova, E. S. (2021). The effect of categorical superiority in subsequent search misses. Acta psychologica, 219, 103375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103375
Rubtsova, O., Gorbunova, E. (2022). Incidental findings in relation to subsequent search misses in visual search. Psychology in Russia: State of Art, 19(4), 725–735. https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2022-4-725-735
Schmidt, J., & Zelinsky, G. J. (2009). Search guidance is proportional to the categorical specificity of a target cue. Quarterly journal of experimental psychology, 62(10), 1904–1914. https://doi.org/10.1080/17470210902853530
Treisman, A. M., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12(1), 97–136. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(80)90005-5
Treisman, A., & Sato, S. (1990). Conjunction search revisited. Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 16(3), 459–478.
Varela, F. J., Thompson, E., Rosch, E. (1991). The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. MIT Press.
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
Wolfe, J. M. (2001). Asymmetries in visual search: an introduction. Perception & psychophysics, 63(3), 381–389. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03194406
Wolfe, J. M. (2021). Guided Search 6.0: An updated model of visual search. Psychonomic bulletin & review, 28(4), 1060–1092. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01859-9
Wolfe, J. M. (1998). Visual search. In H. Pashler (Ed.). Attention. Psychology Press/Erlbaum (UK) Taylor & Francis.
Wolfe, J. M. (2007). Guided Search 4.0: Current progress with a model of visual search. In W. D. Gray (Ed.). Integrated models of cognitive systems. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195189193.003.0008
Wolfe, J. M. (2012). Saved by a Log: How Do Humans Perform Hybrid Visual and Memory Search? Psychological Science, 23(7), 698–703. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797612443968
Wolfe, J. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2017). Five Factors that Guide Attention in Visual Search. Nature human behaviour, 1(3), 0058. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-017-0058
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
Wolfe, J. M., Palmer, E. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2010). Reaction time distributions constrain models of visual search. Vision research, 50(14), 1304–1311. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2009.11.002
Wolfe, J. M., Soce, A. A., & Schill, H. M. (2017). How did I miss that? Developing mixed hybrid visual search as a „model system‟ for incidental finding errors in radiology. Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications, 2(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41235-017-0072-5
Wolfe, J. M. (2010). Visual search. Current biology, 20(8), R346–R349. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2010.02.016
Wolfe, J. M., & Bennett, S. C. (1997). Preattentive object files: shapeless bundles of basic features. Vision research, 37(1), 25–43. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0042-6989(96)00111-3
Wolfe, J. M., Gancarz, G. (1997). Guided Search 3.0. In: Lakshminarayanan, V. (eds). Basic and Clinical Applications of Vision Science. Documenta Ophthalmologica Proceedings Series, 60. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-5698-1_30
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Copyright (c) 2023 Elena S. Gorbunova