| Title |
Effects of task-irrelevant grouping on visual selection in partial report
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13414-017-1315-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Rasmus Lunau, Thomas Habekost |
| Abstract |
Perceptual grouping modulates performance in attention tasks such as partial report and change detection. Specifically, grouping of search items according to a task-relevant feature improves the efficiency of visual selection. However, the role of task-irrelevant feature grouping is not clearly understood. In the present study, we investigated whether grouping of targets by a task-irrelevant feature influences performance in a partial-report task. In this task, participants must report as many target letters as possible from a briefly presented circular display. The crucial manipulation concerned the color of the elements in these trials. In the sorted-color condition, the color of the display elements was arranged according to the selection criterion, and in the unsorted-color condition, colors were randomly assigned. The distractor cost was inferred by subtracting performance in partial-report trials from performance in a control condition that had no distractors in the display. Across five experiments, we manipulated trial order, selection criterion, and exposure duration, and found that attentional selectivity was improved in sorted-color trials when the exposure duration was 200 ms and the selection criterion was luminance. This effect was accompanied by impaired selectivity in unsorted-color trials. Overall, the results suggest that the benefit of task-irrelevant color grouping of targets is contingent on the processing locus of the selection criterion. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 1 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 1 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 9 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 9 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 3 | 33% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 2 | 22% |
| Other | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Master | 1 | 11% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 1 | 11% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 1 | 11% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 7 | 78% |
| Unknown | 2 | 22% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 16 September 2017.
All research outputs
#21,500,614
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#1,661
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#274,280
of 312,428 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#21
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,773 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 312,428 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.