We carried out three experiments to investigate detection performance in pop-out tasks and analysed how performance varied as a function of display size (number of elements) and retinal eccentricity of the target. Results showed that when display size was increased from 2 to 81 elements performance first decreased and then increased (replicating Sagi and Julesz, 1987 Spatial Vision2 39–49). Performance variations differed as a function of eccentricity and often were more pronounced in the periphery than in the foveal area. This retinal-eccentricity influence suggests that processes underlying detection performance in small display sizes are different from those in large display sizes. One should be careful when using the variation of display size as an instrument to analyse visual-search processes because this analysis could be based on a comparison between non-equivalent conditions.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaconW FEgethH E, 1991“Local processes in preattentive feature detection”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance1777–90
2.
BoumaH, 1970“Interaction effects in parafoveal letter recognition”Nature226177–178
3.
CarrascoMChangI, 1995“The interaction of objective and subjective organizations in a localization search task”Perception & Psychophysics571134–1150
4.
CarrascoMEvertD LChangIKatzS M, 1995“The eccentricity effect: Target eccentricity affects performance on conjunction searches”Perception & Psychophysics571241–1261
5.
CarrascoMFriederK S, 1997“Cortical magnification neutralizes the eccentricity effect in visual search”Vision Research3763–82
6.
CarrascoMMcLeanT LKatzS MFriederK S, 1998“Feature asymmetries in visual search: Effects of display duration, target eccentricity, orientation and spatial frequency”Vision Research38347–374
7.
DonkM, 1995“Some evidence for unequal loss of location and feature information as a function of retinal eccentricity in visual search”Visual Cognition2201–220
8.
GeislerW SChouK-L, 1995“Separation of low-level and high-level factors in complex tasks: Visual search”Psychological Review102356–378
9.
GurnseyRPearsonPDayD, 1996“Texture segmentation along the horizontal meridian: Non-monotonic changes in performance with eccentricity”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance22738–757
10.
HuckaufAHellerDNazirT, 1999“Lateral masking: Limitations of the feature interaction account”Perception & Psychophysics61177–189
11.
JoffeK MScialfaC T, 1995“Texture segmentation as a function of eccentricity, spatial frequency and target size”Spatial Vision9325–342
12.
KehrerL, 1987“Perceptual segregation and retinal position”Spatial Vision2247–261
13.
KehrerL, 1989“Central performance drop on perceptual segregation tasks”Spatial Vision445–62
14.
KehrerL, 1997“The central performance drop in texture segmentation: A simulation based on a spatial filter model”Biological Cybernetics77297–305
15.
MeineckeC, 1989“Retinal eccentricity and the detection of targets”Psychological Research51107–116
16.
MeineckeCKehrerL, 1994“Peripheral and foveal segmentation of angle textures”Perception & Psychophysics56326–334
17.
MeineckeCKimchiRGrandeggerC, 2002“A reversal in the direction of detection asymmetry: Effects of spatial density, spatial regularity, and retinal eccentricity”Perception & Psychophysics (in press)
18.
NäätänenR, 1992Attention and Brain Function (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates)
19.
NothdurftH C, 1985“Sensitivity for structure gradient in texture discrimination tasks”Vision Research251957–1968
20.
NothdurftH C, 1990“Texton segregation by associated differences in global and local luminance distribution”Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B239295–320
21.
NothdurftH CGallantJ LVan EssenD C, 1999“Response modulation by texture surround in primate area V1: Correlates of ‘popout’ under anesthesia”Visual Neuroscience1615–34
22.
SagiD, 1990“Detection of an orientation singularity in Gabor textures: Effect of signal density and spatial-frequency”Vision Research301377–1388
23.
SagiDJuleszB, 1987“Short-range limitation on detection of feature differences”Spatial Vision239–49
24.
SchlagheckenFMeineckeCSchrögerE, 2001“Processing spatial and temporal discontinuities: Electrophysiological indicators”Journal of Psychophysiology1580–94
25.
SchrögerE, 1997“On the detection of auditory deviants: A pre-attentive activation model”Psychophysiology34245–257
26.
StrasburgerHHarveyL O JRentschlerI, 1991“Contrast thresholds for identification of numeric characters in direct and eccentric view”Perception & Psychophysics49495–508
27.
TownsendJ T, 1974“Issues and models concerning the processing of finite number of inputs”, in Human Information Processing: Tutorials in Performance and Cognition Ed. KantowitzB H (Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates) pp 133–168
28.
TownsendJ T, 1990“Serial vs parallel processing: Sometimes they look like Tweedledum and Tweedledee, but they can (and should) be distinguished”Psychological Science146–54
29.
TreismanA MGeladeG, 1980“A feature-integration theory of attention”Cognitive Psychology1297–136
30.
TreismanA MSatoS, 1990“Conjunction search revisited”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance16459–478
31.
WolfeJ M, 1992“‘Effortless' texture segmentation and ‘parallel’ visual search are not the same thing”Vision Research32757–763
32.
WolfeJ M, 1998“Visual search”, in Attention Ed. PashlerH (Hove, East Sussex: Psychology Press) pp 13–73
33.
WolfeJ MCaveK RFranzelS L, 1989“Guided search: An alternative to the feature integration model for visual search”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance15419–433
34.
WolfeJ MO'NeillPBennettS C, 1998“Why are there eccentricity effects in visual search? Visual and attentional hypotheses”Perception & Psychophysics60140–156
35.
YeshurunYCarrascoM, 1998“Attention improves or impairs visual performance by enhancing spatial resolution”Nature39672–75
