ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance2015
You look familiar, but I don't care: Lure rejection in hybrid visual and memory search is not based on familiarity.
Article in Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
15 citing papers in PubMed.
- Attentional capture effects are modulated by the number of concurrently maintained search goals.Frontiers in cognition · 2026Article
- Activated long-term memory and visual working memory during hybrid visual search: Effects on target memory search and distractor memory.Memory & cognition · 2024Article
- Hybrid visual and memory search for scenes and objects with variable viewpoints.Journal of vision · 2024Article
- Investigating the effects of context, visual working memory, and inhibitory control in hybrid visual search.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2024Article
- The association of targets modulates the search efficiency in multitarget searches.Attention, perception & psychophysics · 2023Article
- Age doesn't matter much: hybrid visual and memory search is preserved in older adults.Neuropsychology, development, and cognition. Section B, Aging, neuropsychology and cognition · 2020Article
- Examining the effects of passive and active strategies on behavior during hybrid visual memory search: evidence from eye tracking.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2019Article
- Hybrid foraging search in younger and older age.Psychology and aging · 2019Article
- Item frequency in probe-recognition memory search: Converging evidence for a role of item-response learning.Memory & cognition · 2018Article
- Lost in the supermarket: Quantifying the cost of partitioning memory sets in hybrid search.Memory & cognition · 2018Article
- One visual search, many memory searches: An eye-tracking investigation of hybrid search.Journal of vision · 2017Article
- Five Factors that Guide Attention in Visual Search.Nature human behaviour · 2017Article
- How did I miss that? Developing mixed hybrid visual search as a 'model system' for incidental finding errors in radiology.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2017Article
- Simple eye-movement feedback during visual search is not helpful.Cognitive research: principles and implications · 2017Article
- Hybrid foraging search: Searching for multiple instances of multiple types of target.Vision research · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
In "hybrid" search tasks, observers hold multiple possible targets in memory while searching for those targets among distractor items in visual displays. Wolfe (2012) found that, if the target set is held constant over a block of trials, reaction times (RTs) in such tasks were a linear function of the number of items in the visual display and a linear function of the log of the number of items held in memory. However, in such tasks, the targets can become far more familiar than the distractors. Does this "familiarity"- operationalized here as the frequency and recency with which an item has appeared-influence performance in hybrid tasks In Experiment 1, we compared searches where distractors appeared with the same frequency as the targets to searches where all distractors were novel. Distractor familiarity did not have any reliable effect on search. In Experiment 2, most distractors were novel but some critical distractors were as common as the targets while others were 4× more common. Familiar distractors did not produce false alarm errors, though they did slightly increase RTs. In Experiment 3, observers successfully searched for the new, unfamiliar item among distractors that, in many cases, had been seen only once before. We conclude that when the memory set is held constant for many trials, item familiarity alone does not cause observers to mistakenly confuse target with distractors.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.