Linked Life Data

16502843

Source:http://linkedlifedata.com/resource/pubmed/id/16502843

Statements in which the resource exists as a subject.
PredicateObject
rdf:type
lifeskim:mentions
pubmed:issue
7
pubmed:dateCreated
2006-2-28
pubmed:abstractText
It has been argued that search performance under preview conditions relies on automatic capture by luminance onsets (Donk & Theeuwes, 2001). We present three experiments in which preview search was examined with both isoluminant and nonisoluminant items (e.g., as defined by luminance onsets). Experiment 1 provided evidence against the automatic capture of attention by onsets. Search benefited when onset previews were followed by new onset stimuli, as compared with a full-set baseline matched for the number of new onsets but in which half the distractors appeared simultaneously at isoluminance. Furthermore, both Experiments 1 and 2 established a preview advantage when isoluminant targets followed onset previews, when compared with appropriate full-set baselines. Experiment 3 replicated this result, while showing that the preview benefit was disrupted by dual-task interference. The data indicate that new onsets are not necessary to generate a preview advantage in search. We discuss the data in terms of search's benefiting from active inhibition of old onset-defined stimuli.
pubmed:language
eng
pubmed:journal
pubmed:citationSubset
IM
pubmed:status
MEDLINE
pubmed:month
Oct
pubmed:issn
0031-5117
pubmed:author
pubmed:issnType
Print
pubmed:volume
67
pubmed:owner
NLM
pubmed:authorsComplete
Y
pubmed:pagination
1214-28
pubmed:dateRevised
2006-11-15
pubmed:meshHeading
pubmed:year
2005
pubmed:articleTitle
Revisiting preview search at isoluminance: new onsets are not necessary for the preview advantage.
pubmed:affiliation
School of Psychology, University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England. j.j.braithwaite@bham.ac.uk
pubmed:publicationType
Journal Article, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't