Abstract
A striking range of individual differences has recently been reported in three different visual search tasks. These differences in performance can be attributed to strategy, that is, the efficiency with which participants control their search to complete the task quickly and accurately. Here, we ask whether an individual’s strategy and performance in one search task is correlated with how they perform in the other two. We tested 64 observers and found that even though the test–retest reliability of the tasks was high, an observer’s performance and strategy in one task was not predictive of their behaviour in the other two. These results suggest search strategies are stable over time, but context-specific. To understand visual search, we therefore need to account not only for differences between individuals but also how individuals interact with the search task and context.
Highlights
As is common in cognitive psychology, most visual search literature has focused on how the average participant performs in the task, despite it being well known that there is a great deal of variability between one subject and the
The aim of the present study is to investigate the extent to which individual differences are stable across different visual search paradigms
Our results are consistent with the original split- half line segment (SHLS) study (Nowakowska et al, 2017): we find a large range of individual differences in search reaction time and accuracy
Summary
As is common in cognitive psychology, most visual search literature has focused on how the average participant performs in the task, despite it being well known that there is a great deal of variability between one subject and the next. From Treisman’s work on Feature Integration Theory (Treisman & Gelade, 1980) to the latest incarnation of the Guided Search Model (Wolfe et al, 2015), we have a good understanding of what makes particular objects easier or harder to find These theories and models have neglected the question of why some observers find visual search so much harder than others. These differences can emerge from several different sources of variation: tiredness (Mackworth, 1948), information-processing ability, speed-accuracy trade-off, motivation, visual impairments (Nowakowska et al, 2016), and search strategies (Boot et al, 2006). Large individual differences were found with respect to the number of saccades participants made while monitoring the stimulus, which was negatively correlated with detection performance
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.
