Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T05:48:51.533Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The FVF framework and target prevalence effects

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2017

Tamaryn Menneer ,
Hayward J. Godwin ,
Simon P. Liversedge ,
Anne P. Hillstrom ,
Valerie Benson ,
Erik D. Reichle  and
Nick Donnelly
Tamaryn Menneer
Affiliation:
University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, SO171BJ, United Kingdom.T.Menneer@soton.ac.ukhayward.godwin@soton.ac.ukS.P.Liversedge@soton.ac.ukanne.hillstrom@gmail.comV.Benson@soton.ac.ukE.Reichle@soton.ac.ukN.Donnelly@soton.ac.uk
Hayward J. Godwin
Affiliation:
University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, SO171BJ, United Kingdom.T.Menneer@soton.ac.ukhayward.godwin@soton.ac.ukS.P.Liversedge@soton.ac.ukanne.hillstrom@gmail.comV.Benson@soton.ac.ukE.Reichle@soton.ac.ukN.Donnelly@soton.ac.uk
Simon P. Liversedge
Affiliation:
University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, SO171BJ, United Kingdom.T.Menneer@soton.ac.ukhayward.godwin@soton.ac.ukS.P.Liversedge@soton.ac.ukanne.hillstrom@gmail.comV.Benson@soton.ac.ukE.Reichle@soton.ac.ukN.Donnelly@soton.ac.uk
Anne P. Hillstrom
Affiliation:
University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, SO171BJ, United Kingdom.T.Menneer@soton.ac.ukhayward.godwin@soton.ac.ukS.P.Liversedge@soton.ac.ukanne.hillstrom@gmail.comV.Benson@soton.ac.ukE.Reichle@soton.ac.ukN.Donnelly@soton.ac.uk
Valerie Benson
Affiliation:
University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, SO171BJ, United Kingdom.T.Menneer@soton.ac.ukhayward.godwin@soton.ac.ukS.P.Liversedge@soton.ac.ukanne.hillstrom@gmail.comV.Benson@soton.ac.ukE.Reichle@soton.ac.ukN.Donnelly@soton.ac.uk
Erik D. Reichle
Affiliation:
University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, SO171BJ, United Kingdom.T.Menneer@soton.ac.ukhayward.godwin@soton.ac.ukS.P.Liversedge@soton.ac.ukanne.hillstrom@gmail.comV.Benson@soton.ac.ukE.Reichle@soton.ac.ukN.Donnelly@soton.ac.uk
Nick Donnelly
Affiliation:
University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, SO171BJ, United Kingdom.T.Menneer@soton.ac.ukhayward.godwin@soton.ac.ukS.P.Liversedge@soton.ac.ukanne.hillstrom@gmail.comV.Benson@soton.ac.ukE.Reichle@soton.ac.ukN.Donnelly@soton.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The Functional Visual Field (FVF) offers explanatory power. To us, it relates to existing literature on the flexibility of attentional focus in visual search and reading (Eriksen & St. James 1986; McConkie & Rayner 1975). The target article promotes reflection on existing findings. Here we consider the FVF as a mechanism in the Prevalence Effect (PE) in visual search.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e147
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Eriksen, C. W. & St. James, J. D. (1986) Visual attention within and around the field of focal attention: A zoom lens model. Perception and Psychophysics 40:225–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godwin, H. J., Menneer, T., Cave, K. R., Thaibsyah, M. & Donnelly, N. (2015a) The effects of increasing target prevalence on information-processing during visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 22(2):469–75.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Godwin, H. J., Menneer, T., Riggs, C. A., Cave, K. R. & Donnelly, N. (2015b) Perceptual failures in the selection and identification of low-prevalence targets in relative prevalence visual search. Attention, Perception, and Psychophysics 77:150–59.Google Scholar
Godwin, H. J., Reichle, E. D. & Menneer, T. (2014) Coarse-to-fine eye movement behavior during visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 21:1244–49.Google Scholar
Godwin, H. J., Reichle, E. D. & Menneer, T. (in press) Modeling lag-2 revisits to understand trade-offs in mixed control of fixation termination during visual search. Cognitive Science.Google Scholar
Hout, M. C., Walenchok, S. C., Goldinger, S. D. & Wolfe, J. M. (2015) Failures of perception in the low-prevalence effect: Evidence from active and passive visual search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 41:977–94.Google Scholar
Liversedge, S. P. & Findlay, J. M. (2000) Eye movements reflect cognitive processes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 4:6–14.Google Scholar
McConkie, G. W. & Rayner, K. (1975) The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception and Psychophysics 17:578–86. doi: 10.3758/BF03203972.Google Scholar
Over, E. A. B., Hooge, I. T. C., Vlaskamp, B. N. S. & Erkelens, C. J. (2007) Coarse-to-fine eye movement strategy in visual search. Vision Research 47:2272–80. doi: 10.1016/j. visres.2007.05.002.Google Scholar
Rayner, K. & Duffy, S. A. (1986) Lexical complexity and fixation times in reading: Effects of word frequency, verb complexity, and lexical ambiguity. Memory and Cognition 14:191–201.Google Scholar
Reingold, E. M. & Glaholt, M. G. (2014) Cognitive control of fixation duration in visual search: The role of extrafoveal processing. Visual Cognition 22(3):1–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tseng, P., Carmi, R., Cameron, I. G. M., Munoz, D. P. & Itti, L. (2009) Quantifying center bias of observers in free viewing of dynamic natural scenes. Journal of Vision 9(7):1–16.Google Scholar
Wolfe, J. M., Horowitz, T. S. & Kenner, N. M. (2005) Rare items often missed in visual searches. Nature 435(7041):439–40. doi: 10.1038/435439a.Google Scholar