Attention in Visual Search: Distinguishing Four Causes of a Set-Size Effect

By John Palmer. 1995

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

A detection theory account of change detection. (2004, methodology): “This assumption of the MAD model leads to a somewhat different mathematical exposition from the max model variant (Eckstein et al., 2000; Palmer, 1990, 1995; Palmer et al., 2000; Shaw, 1980) previously employed to explain performance in visual search tasks.”
On the dissociation between compound and present/absent tasks in visual search: Intertrial priming is ambiguity driven (2006, background): “This is because, by nature, the present/absent task is a signal detection task (Palmer, 1995; Tanner & Swets, 1954).”
Persistence in eye movement during visual search (2016, background): “The first theories on visual search assumed the existence of visual memory in terms of an inhibitory mechanism that prevents an item to be revisited after identifying it as a distractor [10], or in the capacity of collecting visual information in parallel for each item inspected [11].”
Visual search (2010, methodology): “In a similar spirit are models that frame the visual search problem in signal detection terms (Geisler & Chou, 1995; Palmer, 1994; Palmer, 1995; Swensson & Judy, 1981) though signal detection theory is a tool that is useful across search models.”
The Science of Visual Data Communication: What Works (2021, background): “Figure 8 depicts four of the primary cues roughly in order of strength: connecting lines, position proximity, and similarity in either color or shape (Brooks, 2015; Palmer, 1995).”
Vision Using Routines: A Functional Account of Vision (2000, background): “The controlling factor in search time appears, rather, to be one of the difficulty of the discrimination or quality of the signal (Geisler, 1995; Palmer, 1995).”
Visual attention: The past 25 years (2011, background): “In most human studies of visual search the role of attention has been inferred rather than directly manipulated, and only a few studies have taken into account basic visual and stimulus factors (e.g., Carrasco & Frieder, 1997; Carrasco et al., 1995; Carrasco, McLean, et al., 1998; Geisler & Chou, 19”
The psychophysics of visual search. (2000, methodology): “While numerous studies have measured performance as a function of set size (e.g. Estes & Taylor, 1964; Shaw, 1980, 1984; for reviews see Teichner & Krebs, 1974; Palmer, 1995; Pashler, 1998), fewer have varied discriminability to estimate a threshold as a function of set size (Bergen & Julesz, 1983; ”
Visual Clutter Causes High-Magnitude Errors (2006, result): “Whereas the effects of set size have often been thought to implicate serial processing [5], many recent studies [6–12] account for search results within the framework of signal detection theory (SDT) [13] by the effects of stimulus uncertainty: the uncertainty about which stimulus is the target mean”
Exploring set size effects in scenes: Identifying the objects of search (2008, methodology): “On the one hand, there is a rich tradition of characterizing search behaviour in terms of set size (e.g., Palmer, 1995; Wolfe, 1998b), but the stimuli in these studies were arrays of individuated objects, not scenes.1 Consequently, they cannot address whether, or how, scene constraints affect the…”