Abstract
Humans spend a lot of time searching for things, such as roadside traffic signs1, soccer balls2 or tumours in mammograms3. These tasks involve the deployment of attention from one item in the visual field to the next. Common sense suggests that rejected items should be noted in some fashion so that effort is not expended in re-examining items that have been attended to and rejected. However, common sense is wrong. Here we asked human observers to search for a letter ‘T’ among letters ‘L’. This search demandsvisual attention and normally proceeds at a rate of 20–30 milliseconds per item4. In the critical condition, we randomly relocated all letters every 111 milliseconds. This made it impossible for the subjects to keep track of the progress of the search. Nevertheless, the efficiency of the search was unchanged. Theories of visual search all assume that search relies on accumulating information about the identity of objects over time5,6,7. Such theories predict that search efficiency will be drastically reduced if the scene is continually shuffled while the observer is trying to search through it. As we show that efficiency is not impaired, the standard theories must be revised.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 51 print issues and online access
$199.00 per year
only $3.90 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Fairclough, S. & Maternaghan, M. in Visual Search 2 (eds Brogan, D., Gale, A. & Carr, K.) 419–431 (Taylor & Francis, London, (1993)).
Helsen, W. & Pauwels, J. M. in Visual Search 2 (eds Brogan, D., Gale, A. & Carr, K.) 379–388 (Taylor & Francis, London, (1993)).
Gale, A. G. & Walker, G. E. in Visual Search 2 (eds Brogan, D., Gale, A. & Carr, K.) 231–238 (Taylor & Francis, London, (1993)).
Wolfe, J. M. What can 1 million trials tell us about visual search? Psychol. Sci. 9, 33–39 (1998).
Treisman, A. & Gelade, G. Afeature–integration theory of attention. Cogn. Psychol. 12, 97–136 (1980).
Palmer, J. Attention in visual search: distinguishing four causes of a set-size effect. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 4, 118–123 (1995).
Grossberg, S., Mingolla, E. & Ross, W. D. Aneural theory of attentive visual search: interactions of boundary, surface, spatial, and object representations. Psychol. Rev. 101, 470–489 (1994).
Chun, M. M. & Wolfe, J. M. Just say no: how are visual searches terminated when there is no target present? Cogn. Psychol. 30, 39–78 (1996).
Wolfe, J. M. Guided search 2.0: a revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 1, 202–238 (1994).
Irwin, D. E. Integrating information across saccadic eye movements. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 5, 94–100 (1996).
Rensink, R. A., O'Regan, J. K. & Clark, J. J. To see or not to see: the need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychol. Sci. 8, 368–373 (1997).
Simons, D. J. & Levin, D. T. Change blindness. Trends Cogn. Sci. 1, 261–267 (1997).
Acknowledgements
We thank L. Adams, K. Dahlen, H. Egeth, G. Gancarz, I. Horowitz, J. Mangels, R.Klein, A.Treisman, R. Ward and S. Yantis for comments on the manuscript, and N. Klempen for assistance with data collection. Supported by grants from AFOSR, NIH and NSF (to J.M.W.) and an NIH individual NRSA (T.S.H.)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Horowitz, T., Wolfe, J. Visual search has no memory. Nature 394, 575–577 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1038/29068
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/29068
This article is cited by
-
What do we know about volumetric medical image interpretation?: a review of the basic science and medical image perception literatures
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications (2019)
-
Finding any Waldo with zero-shot invariant and efficient visual search
Nature Communications (2018)
-
Memory shapes visual search strategies in large-scale environments
Scientific Reports (2018)
-
Simple eye-movement feedback during visual search is not helpful
Cognitive Research: Principles and Implications (2017)
-
Scene grammar shapes the way we interact with objects, strengthens memories, and speeds search
Scientific Reports (2017)
Comments
By submitting a comment you agree to abide by our Terms and Community Guidelines. If you find something abusive or that does not comply with our terms or guidelines please flag it as inappropriate.