The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

Dual-target cost in visual search for multiple unfamiliar faces

Dual-target cost in visual search for multiple unfamiliar faces
Dual-target cost in visual search for multiple unfamiliar faces
Visual search is slower and less accurate when trying to find more than one target object, referred to as the dual-target cost, and reduced attentional guidance has been shown to be the cause (e.g. Menneer et al., 2012). Studies in the eye-witness domain have shown the presence of two target faces reduces accuracy of identifying a single target face in both memory and matching paradigms (Megreya & Burton, 2006; Bindemann et al., 2012; Megreya & Bindemann, 2012). Here we examine behavioural performance and eye movements when searching for one versus two unfamiliar faces. Specifically, we were interested to see whether there was a dual-target cost and, if observed, whether the cause is the same for faces as for objects. Across two experiments, we varied the visual similarity of distractors to target faces using morphing. In both experiments, the similarity of distractors to targets was graded. In Experiment 1 distractors were morphed with only one of the targets and in Experiment 2 some distractors were morphs of both targets. In both experiments there was evidence of a dual-target cost: dual-target search took longer and was less accurate than single-target search. On target-absent trials, the participants searched exhaustively in both single and dual-target conditions, highlighting the difficulty of the task. Searching for two targets resulted in ‘shedding’, wherein participants gave up searching for one of the targets. There was evidence of guidance to faces in relation to the participant’s preferred target in both single and dual-target search in Experiment 2, but only single-target search in Experiment 1. Probability of fixation to distractors was proportional to the similarity of the distractor to the preferred target. Overall, results suggest effective visual search for unfamiliar faces is limited to a single face, which has profound implications for applied search tasks.
Mestry, Natalie
7f725141-430d-4118-a43d-943f6bae787f
Menneer, Tamaryn
d684eaf6-1494-4004-9973-cb8ccc628efa
Godwin, Hayward
df22dc0c-01d1-440a-a369-a763801851e5
Cave, Kyle
27d7d0fa-5584-4223-9a02-c732b126a18e
Donnelly, Nicholas
05c83b6b-ee8d-4c9d-85dc-c5dcd6b5427b
Mestry, Natalie
7f725141-430d-4118-a43d-943f6bae787f
Menneer, Tamaryn
d684eaf6-1494-4004-9973-cb8ccc628efa
Godwin, Hayward
df22dc0c-01d1-440a-a369-a763801851e5
Cave, Kyle
27d7d0fa-5584-4223-9a02-c732b126a18e
Donnelly, Nicholas
05c83b6b-ee8d-4c9d-85dc-c5dcd6b5427b

Mestry, Natalie, Menneer, Tamaryn, Godwin, Hayward, Cave, Kyle and Donnelly, Nicholas (2015) Dual-target cost in visual search for multiple unfamiliar faces. VSS2015: Vision Sciences Society. (doi:10.1167/15.12.58).

Record type: Conference or Workshop Item (Poster)

Abstract

Visual search is slower and less accurate when trying to find more than one target object, referred to as the dual-target cost, and reduced attentional guidance has been shown to be the cause (e.g. Menneer et al., 2012). Studies in the eye-witness domain have shown the presence of two target faces reduces accuracy of identifying a single target face in both memory and matching paradigms (Megreya & Burton, 2006; Bindemann et al., 2012; Megreya & Bindemann, 2012). Here we examine behavioural performance and eye movements when searching for one versus two unfamiliar faces. Specifically, we were interested to see whether there was a dual-target cost and, if observed, whether the cause is the same for faces as for objects. Across two experiments, we varied the visual similarity of distractors to target faces using morphing. In both experiments, the similarity of distractors to targets was graded. In Experiment 1 distractors were morphed with only one of the targets and in Experiment 2 some distractors were morphs of both targets. In both experiments there was evidence of a dual-target cost: dual-target search took longer and was less accurate than single-target search. On target-absent trials, the participants searched exhaustively in both single and dual-target conditions, highlighting the difficulty of the task. Searching for two targets resulted in ‘shedding’, wherein participants gave up searching for one of the targets. There was evidence of guidance to faces in relation to the participant’s preferred target in both single and dual-target search in Experiment 2, but only single-target search in Experiment 1. Probability of fixation to distractors was proportional to the similarity of the distractor to the preferred target. Overall, results suggest effective visual search for unfamiliar faces is limited to a single face, which has profound implications for applied search tasks.

This record has no associated files available for download.

More information

Published date: 2015
Venue - Dates: VSS2015: Vision Sciences Society, 2015-01-01
Organisations: Psychology

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 385186
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/385186
PURE UUID: fcef6fd3-a55e-4a51-8d36-fd6ed6c65622
ORCID for Hayward Godwin: ORCID iD orcid.org/0009-0005-1232-500X

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 14 Jan 2016 12:35
Last modified: 15 Mar 2024 03:34

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: Natalie Mestry
Author: Tamaryn Menneer
Author: Hayward Godwin ORCID iD
Author: Kyle Cave
Author: Nicholas Donnelly

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×