Visual indexing theory: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 22:05, 27 February 2023

Revision as of 22:23, 27 February 2023

Line 107:

Burkell and Pylyshyn found that subjects were indeed quicker to identify the target object in the subset feature search condition than they were in the subset conjunction search condition, suggesting that the subsetted objects were successfully prioritised. In other words, the subsets "could, in a number of important ways, be accessed by the visual system as though they were the only items present".<ref name="Pylyshyn94"/> Furthermore, the subsetted objects' particular positions within the display made no difference to subjects' ability to search across them — even when they were distally located.<ref name="Burkell"/> Watson and Humphreys (1997) reported similar findings.<ref>Watson, D.G. and Humphreys, G.W. (1997). Visual marking: prioritizing selection for new objects by top-down attentional inhibition of old objects. Psychological Review. 104, 90–122</ref> These results are consistent with the predictions of visual indexing theory: FINSTs provide a possible mechanism by which the subsets were prioritised.

==See also==

*[[Sparse distributed memory]]

==References==