Abstract
In this paper, we report that when the low-level features of targets and distractors are held constant, visual search performance can be strongly influenced by familiarity. In the first condition, a was the target amid as distractors, and vice versa. The response time increased steeply as a function of number of distractors (82 msec/item). When the same stimuli were rotated by 90° (the second condition), however, they became familiar patterns— and—and gave rise to much shallower search functions (31 msec/item). In the third condition, when the search was for a familiar target, (or), among unfamiliar distractors, (or), the slope was about 46 msec/item. In the last condition, when the search was for an unfamiliar target, (or), among familiar distractors, s (or s), parallel search functions were found with a slope of about 1.5 msec/item. These results show that familiarity speeds visual search and that it does so principally when the distractors, not the targets, are familiar.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brand, J. (1971). Classification without identification in visual search.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,23, 178–186.
Duncan, J., &Humphreys, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity.Psychological Review,96, 433–458.
Egeth, H., Jonides, J., &Wall, S. (1972). Parallel processing of multielement displays.Cognitive Psychology,3, 674–698.
Enns, J. T. (1990). Three-dimensional features that pop-out in visual search. In D. Brogan (Ed.),Visual search: Proceedings of the First International Conference on Visual Search (pp. 37–45). New York: Taylor & Francis.
Enns, J. T., &Rensink, R. A. (1990). Sensitivity to three-dimensional orientation in visual search.Psychological Science,1, 323–326.
Frith, U. (1974). A curious effect with reversed letters explained by a theory of schema.Perception & Psychophysics,16, 113–116.
Gordon, I. E. (1968). Interaction between items in visual search.Journal of Experimental Psychology,76, 348–355.
He, Z. J., &Nakayama, K. (1992). Surfaces versus features in visual search.Nature,359, 231–233.
Jonides, J., &Gleitman, H. (1972). A conceptual category effect in visual search: O as letter or as digit.Perception & Psychophysics,12, 457–460.
Julesz, B. (1984). Toward an axiomatic theory of preattentive vision. In G. M. Edelman, W. E. Gall, & W. M. Cowan (Eds.),Dynamic aspects of neocortical function (pp. 585–711). New York: Wiley.
Karni, A., &Sagi, D. (1991). Where practice makes perfect in texture discrimination: Evidence for primary visual cortex plasticity.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences,88, 4966–4970.
Kleffner, D. A., &Ramachandran, V. S. (1992). On the perception of shape from shading.Perception & Psychophysics,52, 18–36.
Miller, E. K., Li, L., &Desimone, R. (1991). A neural mechanism for working and recognition memory in inferior temporal cortex.Science,254, 1377–1379.
Nakayama, K., &Silverman, G. H. (1986). Serial and parallel processing of visual feature conjunctions.Nature,320, 264–265.
Ramachandran, V. S. (1988). Perceiving shape from shading.Scientific American,259, 76–83.
Reicher, G. M., Snyder, C. R. R., &Richards, J. T. (1976). Familiarity of background characters in visual scanning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance,2, 522–530.
Richards, J. T., &Reicher, G. M. (1978). The effect of background familiarity in visual search: An analysis of underlying factors.Perception & Psychophysics,23, 499–505.
Sabra, A. I. (1989).The optics of Ibn Al-Haytham (English trans.). London: Warburg Institute, University of London.
Schneider, W., &Shiffrin, R. M. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search and attention.Psychological Review,84, 1–58.
Shiffrin, R. M., &Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information procession: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory.Psychological Review,84, 127–188.
Treisman, A. (1985). Preattentive processing in vision.Computer Vision, Graphics, & Image Processing,31, 156–177.
Treisman, A. (1988). Features and objects: The 14th Bartlett Memorial Lecture.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,40A, 201–237.
Treisman, A., &Gormican, S. (1988). Feature analysis in early vision: Evidence from search asymmetries.Psychological Review,95, 15–48.
Treisman, A., &Souther, J. (1985). Search asymmetry: A diagnostic for preattentive processing of separable features.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,114, 285–310.
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 & Performance,15, 419–433.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This research was supported by NEI Grant EY09258.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wang, Q., Cavanagh, P. & Green, M. Familiarity and pop-out in visual search. Perception & Psychophysics 56, 495–500 (1994). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206946
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206946