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

There is a debate among search theorists as to whether search exploits a memory for rejected distractors. We addressed this question by monitoring eye movements and explicitly marking objects visited by gaze during search. If search is memoryless, markers might be used to reduce distractor reinspections and improve search efficiency, relative to a no-marking baseline. However, if search already uses distractor memory, there should be no differences between marking and no-marking conditions. In four experiments, with stimuli ranging from Os and Qs to realistic scenes, two consistent data patterns emerged: (1) Marking rejected distractors produced no systematic benefit for search efficiency, as measured by reinspections, reaction times, or errors, and (2) distractor reinspection rates were, overall, extremely low. These results suggest that search uses a memory for rejected distractors, at least in those many real-world search tasks in which gaze is free to move.

Marking rejected distractors: A gaze-contingent technique for measuring memory during search