English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

# 56.329 Typically, visual search experiments involve single-target (ST), template-guided search: Observers are shown a picture and look for it embedded among distractors. But real-world search is more difficult. Multiple-target (MT) search is ubiquitous; consider collecting your keys, wallet and phone before departing from home. Also, we rarely have a picture from which to generate a target representation. Rather, we search categorically, by compiling target features from long-term memory. Importantly, MT search incurs speed and accuracy costs, relative to ST search: Observers’ RTs are slowed, they make more (and longer) fixations, and they are more likely to miss and false-alarm (Hout & Goldinger, 2012). Paradoxically, this increased workload creates more robust incidental memory for distractors encountered while viewing (Hout & Goldinger, 2010). In the current investigation, we contrasted template(picture cues) and categorical-search (word cues), using a rapid-serial visual presentation task (Williams, 2010), wherein participants maintained a varying number of targets in working memory (WM) while passively viewing streams of 24 briefly presented images (centrally displayed, one at a time). This task allowed us to ensure equal encoding opportunities across conditions. The target appeared in each quartile of the stream (early, mid-early, mid-late, late) equally often. After search, we administered a surprise, 2AFC recognition memory test for items previously seen; foils were semantically matched. Search accuracy was better under ST conditions, relative to MT, and was better in templaterelative to categorical-search. People also located the target more accurately when it appeared late in the stream, relative to earlier. Recognition memory performance, however, was better for items encountered while searching for multiple targets (and tended to be better for items that appear after the target, relative to before it). The results are discussed with respect to our preliminary model of learning in visual search (SQuEaL; Hout & Goldinger, 2011), which suggests that MT template-guided search may involve a strategy shift, wherein cognitive resources are transferred from maintaining target representations in WM to the faithful encoding of search items. In categorical search, a similar mechanism may come into play, whereby the maintenance of guiding features is less stable in MT search. Finally, we explored pupil diameters in order to examine attentional vigilance and its relation to search performance (e.g., Papesh, Goldinger & Hout, 2012). Pupil dilation was a reliable marker of task difficulty, as well as target identification. Moreover, pupils elucidated existing shortcomings of the SQuEal model; future modeling efforts are revised in keeping with the attentional signatures indicated by pupil dilation. RSVPupillometry: Incidental memory and psychophysiology in rapid-serial multiple-target search. Michael C. Hout , Megan H. Papesh , & Stephen D. Goldinger 1 1 Arizona State University; 2 Louisiana State University 12th Annual Meeting of the Vision Sciences Society