Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T15:46:32.625Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Fixations are not all created equal: An objection to mindless visual search

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2017

James T. Enns  and
Marcus R. Watson
James T. Enns
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z4, Canada. jenns@psych.ubc.cahttp://visionlab.psych.ubc.ca
Marcus R. Watson
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, York University, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3, Canada. marcusrwatson@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This call to revolution in theories of visual search does not go far enough. Treating fixations as uniform is an oversimplification that obscures the critical role of the mind. We remind readers that what happens during a fixation depends on mindset, as shown in studies of search strategy and of humans' ability to rapidly resume search following an interruption.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e138
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

Enns, J. T. & Kingstone, A. (1995) Access to global and local properties in visual search for compound stimuli. Psychological Science 6:283–91.Google Scholar
Fecteau, J. H., Enns, J. T. & Kingstone, A. (2000) Competition-induced visual field differences in search. Psychological Science 11:386–93.Google Scholar
Hochberg, J. (1968) In the mind's eye. In: Contemporary theory and research in visual perception, ed. Haber, R. N., pp. 309–31. Holt Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Hochberg, J. (1982) How big is a stimulus? In: Contemporary theory and research in visual perception, ed. Beck, J., pp. 191–217. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Lleras, A., Rensink, R. A. & Enns, J. T. (2005) Rapid resumption of interrupted visual search new insights on the interaction between vision and memory. Psychological Science 16(9):684–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lleras, A., Rensink, R. A. & Enns, J. T. (2007) Consequences of display changes during interrupted visual search: Rapid resumption is target specific. Perception and Psychophysics 69(6):980–93.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peterson, M. A., Gillam, B. & Sedgwick, H. A., eds. (2006) In the mind's eye: Julian Hochberg on the perception of pictures, films, and the world. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Roggeveen, A. B., Kingstone, A. & Enns, J. T. (2004) Influence of inter-item symmetry in visual search. Spatial Vision 17:443–64.Google Scholar
Smilek, D., Enns, J. T., Eastwood, J. D. & Merikle, P. M. (2006) Relax! Cognitive strategy influences visual search. Visual Cognition 14(4–8):543–64.Google Scholar
Sutton, R. S. & Barto, A. G. (1998) Reinforcement learning: An Introduction. The MIT Press.Google Scholar
van Zoest, W., Giesbrecht, B., Enns, J. T. & Kingstone, A. F. (2006) Inter-item symmetry influences visual search. Psychological Science 17:535–42.Google Scholar
van Zoest, W., Lleras, A., Kingstone, A. F. & Enns, J. T. (2007) In sight, out of mind: The role of eye movements in the rapid resumption of visual search. Perception and Psychophysics 69:1204–17.Google Scholar
Watson, M. R., Brennan, A. A., Kingstone, A. & Enns, J. T. (2010) Looking versus seeing: Strategies alter eye movements during visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 17(4):543–49.Google Scholar