Abstract
Visual search can be disrupted by irrelevant salient stimuli. Recently, Moher (Psychological Science, 31(1), 31–42, 2020) found salient distractors to speed search when a target was absent and increase error rates when the target was present. That is, distractors lowered search-quitting thresholds. Nonetheless, the salient distractors Moher used were present on 50% of all trials. Since distractor prevalence has been found to influence search processes more broadly, here, we aimed to test the effect of distractor prevalence on this distractor-quitting threshold effect (QTE). To do so, we conducted two experiments. Experiment 1 compared the performance of individuals in a search task where the target was present on 50% of trials across two distractor-prevalence conditions (25% vs. 75% prevalence). Experiment 2 followed the same procedure, except with a wider probability margin (10% vs. 90% prevalence). In Experiment 1, distractor prevalence did not modulate the QTE. Critically, in Experiment 2, the QTE was modulated. For high-prevalence distractors (90%), a QTE was observed. However, as low-prevalence distractors (10%) did not speed search, no QTE was observed. One potential reason no QTE was observed was because low-prevalence distractors have significantly greater attentional capture, which washed out speeded termination effects.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Data availability
Data associated with the current study are found at the following link: https://osf.io/gskvu/?view_only=d44ca1f8672b4af381f4a1f7ac0bae79
Coding of the experiment and other study materials can be made available upon request. None of the experiments were preregistered.
Notes
Experiments 1 and 2 used different loop types in Psychopy to assign conditions. Experiment 1 had a conditions file with 16 trials that used the Psychopy ‘random’ loop, which presents the condition file ‘N’ number of times and randomises within the file on each occasion. Experiment 2 used the ‘full random’ function, which randomises the entire list of possible trial types after combining the conditions files ‘N’ number of times.
References
Becker, M. W., Rodriguez, A., & Pontious, D. (2022). Quitting thresholds in visual search are impacted by target present detection times but not their variability. Attention, Perception & Psychophysics, 84(8), 2461–2471. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-022-02591-3
Chelazzi, L., Marini, F., Pascucci, D., & Turatto, M. (2019). Getting rid of visual distractors: The why, when, how, and where. Current Opinion in Psychology, 29, 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2019.02.004
Cousineau, D. (2005). Confidence intervals in within-subject designs: A simpler solution to Loftus and Masson’s method. Tutorials in quantitative methods for psychology, 1(1), 42–45.
Geyer, T., Müller, H. J., & Krummenacher, J. (2008). Expectancies modulate attentional capture by salient color singletons. Vision Research, 48(11), 1315–1326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.visres.2008.02.006
Goschy, H., Bakos, S., Müller, H. J., & Zehetleitner, M. (2014). Probability cueing of distractor locations: Both intertrial facilitation and statistical learning mediate interference reduction. Frontiers in Psychology, 5. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01195
Lawrence, R. K., & Pratt, J. (2022). Salience matters: Distractors may, or may not, speed target-absent searches. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics, 84(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13414-021-02406-x
Marini, F., Chelazzi, L., & Maravita, A. (2013). The costly filtering of potential distraction: Evidence for a supramodal mechanism. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 142(3), 906–922. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029905
Makovski, T. (2019). Preparing for distraction: Attention is enhanced prior to the presentation of distractors. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 148, 221–236. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000509
Moher, J. (2020). Distracting objects induce early quitting in visual search. Psychological Science, 31(1), 31–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619886809
Moran, R., Zehetleitner, M., Müller, H. J., & Usher, M. (2013). Competitive guided search: Meeting the challenge of benchmark RT distributions. Journal of Vision, 13(8), 24–24. https://doi.org/10.1167/13.8.24
Müller, H. J., Geyer, T., Zehetleitner, M., & Krummenacher, J. (2009). Attentional capture by salient color singleton distractors is modulated by top-down dimensional set. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-1523.35.1.1
Peirce, J., Gray, J. R., Simpson, S., MacAskill, M., Höchenberger, R., Sogo, H., Kastman, E., & Lindeløv, J. K. (2019). PsychoPy2: Experiments in behavior made easy. Behavior Research Methods, 51(1), 195–203. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-018-01193-y
Rabbitt, P., & Rodgers, B. (1977). What does a man do after he makes an error? An analysis of response programming. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 29(4), 727–743. https://doi.org/10.1080/14640747708400645
Ruitenberg, M. F., Abrahamse, E. L., De Kleine, E., & Verwey, W. B. (2014). Post-error slowing in sequential action: An aging study. Frontiers in Psychology, 5, 119. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2014.00119
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2013). Using multivariate statistics (6th ed.). Pearson Education.
Wolfe, J. M. (2012). When do I quit? The search termination problem in visual search. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation., 59, 183–208. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-4794-8_8
Wolfe, J. M. (2021). Guided Search 6.0: An updated model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 28(4), 1060–1092. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-020-01859-9
Won, B. Y., Kosoyan, M., & Geng, J. J. (2019). Evidence for second-order singleton suppression based on probabilistic expectations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 45(1), 125–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/xhp0000594
Yeh, S. L., & Liao, H. I. (2010). On the generality of the displaywide contingent orienting hypothesis: Can a visual onset capture attention without top-down control settings for displaywide onset? Acta Psychologica, 135(2), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2010.05.013
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
Approval was obtained from the ethics committee of Griffith University. The study was performed in line with the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki.
Consent to participate
Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no financial or proprietary interest in any material discussed in this article.
Additional information
Publisher's note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lui, L., Pratt, J. & Lawrence, R.K. The effect of prevalence on distractor speeded search termination. Psychon Bull Rev 31, 303–311 (2024). https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02337-8
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/s13423-023-02337-8