Abstract
The slope of the set size function as a critical statistic first gained favor in the 1960s due in large part to the seminal papers on short-term memory search by Saul Sternberg and soon, many others. In the 1980s, the slope statistic reemerged in much the same role in visual search as Anne Treisman and again, soon many others brought that research topic into great prominence. This note offers the historical and current perspective of the present author, who has devoted a significant portion of his theoretical efforts to this and related topics over the past 50 years.
Highlights
Within the established and rather enormous field of visual search, Kristjansson (2015) argued forcefully in his original i-Perception article against the employment of slopes of set size functions. Wolfe (2016) responds that he agrees with many of the former author’s points but cautions against ‘‘throwing out the baby with the bath water,’’ due to this statistic’s overall utility
There is an asymmetry of logic here: Non-zero slopes are readily, and intuitively, produced by serial as well as limited capacity parallel models, but zero slopes or slopes associated with unlimited capacity parallel models, are biologically and psychologically incompatible with serial processing. (II) Doctrines Concerning Slopes: There are several assumptions associated with tying in the slope statistic with theories of search, as opposed to the slope performing as a descriptive statistic: (1) Among these, perhaps most relevant to the current discussion and one emphasized by Kristjansson, is the principle that the slope should be an invariant across certain experimental manipulations such as response type
The field of shortterm memory search formerly made the same mistake of inferring that approximately straight line mean response time set size functions alone imply seriality ( it is important to mention that, unlike most others, the progenitor, Saul Sternberg (e.g., 1966), employed additional evidence such as addition of cumulant statistics, to back up his claims)
Summary
Within the established and rather enormous field of visual search, Kristjansson (2015) argued forcefully in his original i-Perception article against the employment of slopes of set size functions. Wolfe (2016) responds that he agrees with many of the former author’s points but cautions against ‘‘throwing out the baby with the bath water,’’ due to this statistic’s overall utility. Within the established and rather enormous field of visual search, Kristjansson (2015) argued forcefully in his original i-Perception article against the employment of slopes of set size functions.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
