The Effects Of Pop Out Effect On Visual Search

Suppose another experiment had participants say the word “now” as soon as they detected the green circle, and that the response times were between 100 and 200 milliseconds. What would you conclude about the cognitive tasks involved in these two versions of simple detection?

The purpose of the study was to measure the effect that the Flicker Paradigm had on visual perception. The Flicker Paradigm causes a distraction while there is a change made in the image. It was designed to test how long the groups took to react to a change in the visual field. The test is meant to show that the disturbance in the visual field made it much more challenging for the viewer to notice any changes that were made in the image. The hypothesis stated that the experimental group, the group using the Flicker Paradigm, would take longer to notice the change in the visual field than the control group, which had no flicker between the altered images. This is because the disturbance in the visual field caused the brain to miss the change that was made to the image because the information was deemed as unimportant. The majority of the perceived changes occurred in the background of the scene, and were considered minor in reference to the whole scene. This was proven true from the data collected, and coincided with previous tests. (Rensink, R. A. 2000). The data in tables 1.1 and 1.3 shows the individual participant data for the test with a flicker for both tests one and two. Tables 1.2 and 1.4 represent the individual results for the tests with no flicker, or the control group. Graphs 1.1 and 1.2 showed the relationship between the time taken to recognize alterations in the images. The data was taken from the average time to recognize the change from all

This study examined visual perception and the rates at which global and local features are reacted to with an aim of replicating and validating a previous experiment conducted by Navon (1977) to see if global processing was faster than local processing. There was 222 University of Newcastle students participating in the experiment, partaking in two phases, one centred round global processing, the other around local processing, where there reaction times were recorded using a computer program and imputed into a data worksheet. Results indicated that, as predicted, global processing occurred at a faster rate than local processing. It was concluded that global features were

This was achieved by presenting central cues, indicating the position of the target letter thus increasing focus. Through these experiments they found that when a subject is in a diffuse attention state (unfocussed) SOD do cause attentional capture and increase reaction time. However, if the subject was presented with a cue this same increase in reaction time was not observed. This led them to conclude that attentional capture from SOD is not automatic and instead propose a priority based visual attention system. In 2006 Neo and Chua conducted research which built upon Yantis and Jonides’ to further demonstrate effects of attentional capture on reaction time. They investigated whether sporadic use of the SOD increased the effect of attentional capture as well as investigated whether maintaining the same position for the target letter decreased reaction times. They found that SOD attentional capture did affect reaction times and unlike in Yantis and Jonides’ experiment they concluded SOD did trigger an automaticity response when used

This study examined whether participant’s response times to global target were faster than local targets. Participants had to identify global and local shapes and letters as quick as possible and the response times which were recorded to the computer data. The study was a replication of Navon’s (1977), (cited in Ness Smith and Thirkettle, 2014) experiment but differed, as it was a focused attention task whereas this experiment was a divided attention task. This was the same as Yovel (2001), (cited in Ness, Smith and Thirkettle, 2014) mixed attention task study which tested the global to local accounts. The current

Powell (1986) conducted a study in which individuals viewed a photo or slide. Individuals were required to scan images and decide on an image for the entire display (Powell, 1986). Objects were pointed to, and subjects were asked to identify its location (Powell, 1986). The subject was asked to close his or her eyes and were shown another image. The subjects were to decide if the object was in the correct position (Powell, 1986). The subjects would hear one of the objects and was required to focus on the object while keeping the entire image in his or her mind (Powell, 1986). When the next object was identified, the subjects were to move from the first object to the second watching a black dot moving in a straight line (Powell, 1986).

Snyder and Posner’s study demonstrates that the use of resources inhibits other detectors. In their experiment, there were three conditions. In each one a warning signal appeared, prior to a pair of letters. The participants’ identified whether the pairs of letters were the same or different, as quickly as possible. For example, AA may appear. In the neutral condition, the signal was a +. In the primed condition, the signal was an A, for example. In the mislead condition the signal was an H, for example. The results of the study demonstrated that accuracy rates for all groups were high; however, the reaction time of participants differed. The mislead condition had the slowest reaction times, meaning they took the longest to be identified as the same or different (Posner & Snyder, 1975). This is because the wrong detectors were primed; thus inhibiting the correct detectors. Therefore, inattentional blindness occurs because the wrong detectors were primed, and the right detectors were inhibited, because the attentional and perceptual systems have a limited capacity.

While Klein (2000)'s research did aim to recreate this phenomenon clearly, the current study differentiated its self by introducing the letters L and T as cues to which provided no information about the location of the target as the presentation. As presentation of a single cue meant it was four times more likely for a cue and a target to appear on the same side. The purpose of this variation was that a majority of previous studies had presented the facilitation effect and the IOR effect in a scenario where the cues were equally as

Overall, when comparing the reaction times of pictures to letters, picture reaction times are said to be generally greater.

Stimuli have been known to be everywhere throughout nature today, tragically we don't know about its nearness. Frequently we end up actualizing thoughtfulness regarding sift through the jolts that is not concerning and concentrate more on the boosts that hint at a much pivotal cautioning. Although it is expressed that regardless of how hard somebody needs to focus on a few boosts, it is conceivable that they may have issues to do as such in each circumstance. "When you shift your focus from one thing to another, a tiny "gap" in attention is created lasting about half a second. This gap is known as an attentional blink” (Shapiro, K. L. (1994). This content will give data on Attentional squint how it identifies with consideration, and explanation

This study was a seminal replication on attention blink similar to the one done by Raymond et al, in a rapid serial visual presentation (RSVP) task. This study predicted that there would be a higher accuracy for identifying the first target, T1 and lower accuracy for the second target, T2 depending on the lag, given that T1 was accurately reported. 193 students participated in the experiment. This experiment was a part of the course requirement. There was a stream of 19 letters, each lasting for 100 ms. The target letters, T1 and/or T2, to be identified were either a ‘J’ or a ‘K’ or both from the stream of 19 letters presented. In this study, a total of 60 trials were conducted for each participant. For T1, there were 30 ‘J’ and 30 ‘K’ targets. T2 comprised of 24 J, 24 K and 12 null targets. The participants were asked to decide whether they saw the letters J, K, both or neither following the RSVP stream. They were asked to do so by using a button click mechanism. At the end of all the trials, the participants were presented with a summary of their performance report. It was observed that the percentage of T1 reported does not vary significantly as a function of lag. Also, the percentage of T2 reported varied as a function of lag. At greater lag positions, it was seen that the percentage of T2 reported goes above that of T1.

Figure 1: Mean concentrating reaction times and mean distracted reaction times of 50 Creighton University students. The mean for each condition is shown with a black X. The differences were deemed significant by the paired t-test (t = -2.8715, df = 49, p-value = 0.0060).

In this lab, the team concluded that being distracted with an activity that diverts optical attention away from the focal point, such as texting, significantly increases reaction time. The other distractors, including listening to music and talking on a cell phone, had effectively no impact on reaction time in comparison to having no distraction.

Attentional bias can be defined as increased absorption of and enhanced sensitivity to certain environmental cues (Williams, Muller, Reas, & Thaw, 1999). One way to study attentional biases is with lexical decision tasks (Hill & Kemp-Wheeler, 1989). In a typical lexical decision task, subjects are asked to determine as quickly and accurately as possible if a string of letters displayed on a screen is a word or nonword; both accuracy and speed are predicted to improve with more salient words. For example, if a firefighter read the word fire on the screen, he or she would be expected to respond faster and more accurate than if he or she read the word sock.

This definition emphasises how attention is thought of as a selective process. It seems clear from common sense that we cannot attend to all stimuli at once, so some kind of selection must take place as to what information we attend to and process further, and what is disregarded.