Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-42gr6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T04:04:12.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Set size slope still does not distinguish parallel from serial search

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2017

Daniel R. Little ,
Ami Eidels ,
Joseph W. Houpt  and
Cheng-Ta Yang
Daniel R. Little
Affiliation:
Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville VIC 3010Australia; daniel.little@unimelb.edu.auhttp://www.psych.unimelb.edu.au/people/daniel-little
Ami Eidels
Affiliation:
School of Psychology, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan NSW 2308; ami.eidels@newcastle.edu.auhttp://www.newcl.org/eidels
Joseph W. Houpt
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Wright State University, Dayton, OH 45435-0001; joseph.houpt@wright.eduhttp://www.wright.edu/~joseph.houpt/
Cheng-Ta Yang
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, National Cheng Kung University, Tainan City 701, Taiwan (R.O.C.). yangct@mail.ncku.edu.twhttp://vcmlab.psychology.ncku.edu.tw/vcmlab/
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Much of the evidence for theories in visual search (including Hulleman & Olivers' [H&O's]) comes from inferences made using changes in mean RT as a function of the number of items in a display. We have known for more than 40 years that these inferences are based on flawed reasoning and obscured by model mimicry. Here we describe a method that avoids these problems.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e145
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

Algom, D., Eidels, A., Hawkins, R. X. D., Jefferson, B. & Townsend, J. T. (2015) Features of response times: Identification of cognitive mechanisms through mathematical modeling. In: The Oxford handbook of computational and mathematical psychology (Ch. 4), ed. Busemeyer, J., Wang, Z., Townsend, J. T. & Eidels, A., pp. 63–98. Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eidels, A., Houpt, J. W., Altieri, N., Pei, L. & Townsend, J. T. (2011) Nice guys finish fast and bad guys finish last: Facilitatory vs. inhibitory interaction in parallel systems. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 55:176–90.Google Scholar
Fific, M., Little, D. R. & Nosofsky, R. (2010) Logical-rule models of classification response times: A synthesis of mental-architecture, random-walk, and decision-bound approaches. Psychological Review 117:309–48.Google Scholar
Fific, M., Townsend, J. T. & Eidels, A. (2008) Studying visual search using systems factorial methodology with target-distractor similarity as the factor. Perception and Psychophysics 70:583–603.Google Scholar
Houpt, J. W. & Townsend, J. T. (2012) Statistical measures for workload capacity analysis. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 56:341–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Little, D. R., Eidels, A., Fific, M. & Wang, T. (2015) Understanding the influence of distractors on workload capacity. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 68:25–36.Google Scholar
Sung, K. (2008) Serial and parallel attentive visual searches: Evidence from cumulative distribution functions of response times. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 34:1372.Google ScholarPubMed
Townsend, J. T. (1971) A note on the identifiability of parallel and serial processes. Perception and Psychophysics 10:161–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, J. T. (1972) Some results concerning the identifiability of parallel and serial processes. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology 25:168–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Townsend, J. T. (1990) Serial vs. parallel processing: Sometimes they look like Tweedledum and Tweedledee but they can (and should) be distinguished. Psychological Science 1:46–54.Google Scholar
Townsend, J. T. & Ashby, F. G. (1983) The stochastic modeling of elementary psychological processes. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Townsend, J. T. & Nozawa, G. (1995) Spatio-temporal properties of elementary perception: An investigation of parallel, serial and coactive theories. Journal of Mathematical Psychology 39:321–40.Google Scholar
Townsend, J. T. & Wenger, M. J. (2004) A theory of interactive parallel processing: New capacity measures and predictions for a response time inequality series. Psychological Review 111:1003–1035.Google Scholar
Wolfe, J. M. (1998b) What can 1 million trials tell us about visual search? Psychological Science 9:33–39. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, J. M., Palmer, E. M. & Horowitz, T. S. (2010b) Reaction time distributions constrain models of visual search. Vision Research 50:1304–11.Google Scholar