↓ Skip to main content

Predictive visual search: Role of environmental regularities in the learning of context cues

Overview of attention for article published in Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, March 2018
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Readers on

mendeley
52 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Predictive visual search: Role of environmental regularities in the learning of context cues
Published in
Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, March 2018
DOI 10.3758/s13414-018-1500-4
Pubmed ID
Authors

Artyom Zinchenko, Markus Conci, Hermann J. Müller, Thomas Geyer

Abstract

Repeatedly searching through invariant spatial arrangements in visual search displays leads to the buildup of memory about these displays (contextual-cueing effect). In the present study, we investigate (1) whether contextual cueing is influenced by global statistical properties of the task and, if so, (2) whether these properties increase the overall strength (asymptotic level) or the temporal development (speed) of learning. Experiment 1a served as baseline against which we tested the effects of increased or decreased proportions of repeated relative to nonrepeated displays (Experiments 1b and 1c, respectively), thus manipulating the global statistical properties of search environments. Importantly, probability variations were achieved by manipulating the number of nonrepeated (baseline) displays so as to equate the total number of repeated displays across experiments. In Experiment 1d, repeated and nonrepeated displays were presented in longer streaks of trials, thus establishing a stable environment of sequences of repeated displays. Our results showed that the buildup of contextual cueing was expedited in the statistically rich Experiments 1b and 1d, relative to the baseline Experiment 1a. Further, contextual cueing was entirely absent when repeated displays occurred in the minority of trials (Experiment 1c). Together, these findings suggest that contextual cueing is modulated by observers' assumptions about the reliability of search environments.

X Demographics

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.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 52 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 52 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 17%
Student > Bachelor 7 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 13%
Researcher 6 12%
Student > Doctoral Student 4 8%
Other 4 8%
Unknown 15 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 25 48%
Neuroscience 6 12%
Unspecified 2 4%
Social Sciences 2 4%
Engineering 1 2%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 16 31%
Attention Score in Context

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 03 April 2018.
All research outputs
#19,512,854
of 24,003,070 outputs
Outputs from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#1,533
of 1,773 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#259,555
of 333,181 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics
#21
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,003,070 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% 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 6th percentile – i.e., 6% 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 333,181 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 4th percentile – i.e., 4% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.