Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Target grouping in visual search for multiple digits

  • Published:
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

An Erratum to this article was published on 24 October 2014

Abstract

In four experiments in which participants searched for multiple target digits we hypothesized that search should be fastest when the targets are arranged closely together on the number line without any intervening distractor digits, i.e., the targets form a contiguous and coherent group. In Experiment 1 search performance was better for targets defined by numerical magnitude than parity (i.e., evenness); this result supports our hypothesis but could also be due to the linear separability of targets from distractors or the numerical distance between them. Experiment 2 controlled for target-distractor linear separability and numerical distance, yielding faster search when targets were surrounded by distractors on the number line than when they surrounded distractors. This result is consistent with target contiguity and coherence but also with grouping by similarity of target shapes. Experiment 3 controlled for all three alternative explanations (linear separability, numerical distance, and shape similarity) and search performance was better for contiguous targets than separated targets. In Experiment 4 search performance was better for a coherent target group than one with intervening distractors. Of the possibilities we considered, only the hypothesis based on the contiguity and coherence of the target group on the number line can account for the results from all four experiments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anderson, D. E., Vogel, E. K., & Awh, E. (2013). A common discrete resource for visual working memory and visual search. Psychological Science, 24, 929–938. doi:10.1177/0956797612464380

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, B., Jolicoeur, P., & Cowan, W. B. (1996a). Distractor heterogeneity versus linear separability in colour visual search. Perception, 25, 1281–1294. doi:10.1068/p251281

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, B., Jolicoeur, P., & Cowan, W. B. (1996b). Visual search for colour targets that are or are not linearly separable from distractors. Vision Research, 36, 1439–1465. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(95)00207-3

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bauer, B., Jolicoeur, P., & Cowan, W. B. (1998). The linear separability effect in color visual search: Ruling out the additive color hypothesis. Perception & Psychophysics, 60, 1083–1093. doi:10.3758/BF03211941

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bausell, R. B., & Li, Y.-F. (2002). Power Analysis for Experimental Research: A Practical Guide for the Biological, Medical, and Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Beck, V. M., Hollingworth, A., & Luck, S. J. (2011). Simultaneous control of attention by multiple working memory representations. Psychological Science, 23, 887–898. doi:10.1177/0956797612439068

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D. J. (2009). Integers do not automatically activate their quantity representation. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 332–336. doi:10.3758/PBR.16.2.332

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • D’Zmura, M. (1991). Color in visual search. Vision Research, 31, 951–966. doi:10.1016/0042-6989(91)90203-H

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, J., & Humphreys, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96, 433–458. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.96.3.433

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Feigenson, L., Dehaene, S., & Spelke, E. (2004). Core systems of number. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 307–314. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2004.05.002

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2014). “Top-down” effects where none should be found: The El Greco fallacy in perception research. Psychological Science, 25, 38–46. doi:10.1177/0956797613485092

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • García-Orza, J., Perea, M., Mallouh, R. A., & Carreiras, M. (2012). Physical similarity (and not quantity representation) drives perceptual comparison of numbers: Evidence from two Indian notations. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 294–300. doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0212-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godwin, H. J., Hout, M. C., & Menneer, T. (2014). Visual similarity is stronger than semantic similarity in guiding visual search for numbers. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 21, 689–695. doi:10.3758/s13423-013-0547-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldfarb, L., Henik, A., Rubinsten, O., Block-David, Y., & Gertner, L. (2011). The numerical distance effect is task dependent. Memory & Cognition, 39, 1508–1517. doi:10.3758/s13421-011-0122-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krueger, L. E. (1984). The category effect in visual search depends on physical rather than conceptual differences. Perception & Psychophysics, 35, 558–564. doi:10.3758/BF03205953

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lupyan, G. (2008). The conceptual grouping effect: Categories matter (and named categories matter more). Cognition, 108, 566–577. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2008.03.009

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lupyan, G., & Spivey, M. J. (2008). Perceptual processing is facilitated by ascribing meaning to novel stimuli. Current Biology, 18, R410–R412. doi:10.1016/j.cub.2008.02.073

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lupyan, G., & Ward, E. J. (2013). Language can boost otherwise unseen objects into visual awareness. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 14196–14201. doi:10.1073/pnas.1303312110

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Menneer, T., Cave, K. R., & Donnelly, N. (2009). The cost of search for multiple targets: Effects of practice and target similarity. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 15, 125–139. doi:10.1037/a0015331

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Meteyard, L., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2007). Motion detection and motion words: Language affects low-level visual perception. Psychological Science, 18, 1007–1013. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02016.x

  • Moyer, R. S., & Landauer, T. K. (1967). Time required for judgments of numerical equality judgments. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1, 167–168. doi:10.1038/2151519a0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller-Lyer, F. C. (1889). Optische Urteilstäuschungen. Archiv für Physiologie, 263–270.

  • Olivers, C. N., Peters, J., Houtkamp, R., & Roelfsema, P. R. (2011). Different states in visual working memory: When it guides attention and when it does not. Trends in Cognitive Science, 15, 327–334. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.05.004

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinhas, M., Pothos, E. M., & Tzelgov, J. (2013). Zooming in and out from the mental number line: Evidence for a number range effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 39, 972–976. doi:10.1037/a0029527

    Google Scholar 

  • Poole, B. J., & Kane, M. J. (2009). Working-memory capacity predicts the executive control of visual search among distractors: The influences of sustained and selective attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 62, 1430–1454. doi:10.1080/17470210802479329

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Proulx, M. J., & Egeth, H. E. (2006). Target-nontarget similarity modulates stimulus-driven control in visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 524–529. doi:10.1007/s00426-006-0077-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Puri, A. M., & Wojciulik, E. (2008). Expectation both helps and hinders object perception. Vision Research, 48, 589–597. doi:10.1016/j.visres.2007.11.017

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Pylyshyn, Z. (1999). Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 341–365. doi:10.1017/S0140525X99002022

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reijnen, E., Wolfe, J. M., & Krummenacher, J. (2013). Coarse guidance by numerosity in visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 75, 16–28. doi:10.3758/s1314-012-0379-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, W., & Eiselt, A. K. (2012). Numerical distance effects in visual search. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 74, 1098–1103. doi:10.3758/s1314-012-0342-8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sobel, K. V., Gerrie, M. P., Poole, B. J., & Kane, M. J. (2007). Individual differences in working memory capacity and visual search: The roles of top-down and bottom-up processing. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 840–845. doi:10.3758/BF03194109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies in interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–661. doi:10.1037/h0054651

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stroud, M. J., Menneer, T., Cave, K. R., & Donnelly, N. (2012). Using the dual-target cost to explore the nature of search target representations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 38, 113–122. doi:10.1037/a0025887

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Tzelgov, J., & Ganor-Stern, D. (2005). Automaticity in processing ordinal information. In J. I. D. Campbell (Ed.), Handbook of Mathematical Cognition (pp. 55–67). New York: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, J. M. (1998). Visual Search. In H. Pashler (Ed.), Attention. East Sussex: Psychology Press Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfe, J. M., & Horowitz, T. S. (2004). What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 1–7. doi:10.1038/nrn1411

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author Note

Amrita M. Puri is now at the Department of Psychology and the School of Biological Sciences, Illinois State University. Jared Hogan is now at the College of Medicine, University of Arkansas for Medical Sciences.

Our thanks to Jennifer Brinegar, Tamaryn Menneer, and Gary Lupyan for insightful comments and discussion about previous versions of this manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology and Counseling, University of Central Arkansas, 201 Donaghey Ave., Mashburn Hall 260, Conway, AR, 72035, USA

    Kenith V. Sobel, Amrita M. Puri & Jared Hogan

Authors
  1. Kenith V. Sobel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Amrita M. Puri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jared Hogan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kenith V. Sobel.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sobel, K.V., Puri, A.M. & Hogan, J. Target grouping in visual search for multiple digits. Atten Percept Psychophys 77, 67–77 (2015). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0761-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-014-0761-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation