Dual-target Cost Research Articles

Concurrent evaluation of independently cued features during perceptual decisions and saccadic targeting in visual search

Simultaneous search for one of two targets is slower and less accurate than search for a single target. Within the Signal Detection Theoretic (SDT) framework, this can be attributed to the division of resources during the comparison of visual input against independently cued targets. The current study used one or two cues to elicit single- and dual-target searches for orientation targets among similar and dissimilar distractors. In Experiment 1, the accuracy of target discrimination in brief displays was compared at setsizes of 1, 2 and 4. Results revealed a reduction in accuracy that scaled with the product of set size and the number of cued targets. In Experiment 2, the accuracy and latency of observers’ saccadic targeting were compared. Fixations on single-target searches were highly selective towards the target. On dual-target searches, the requirement to detect one of two targets produced a significant reduction in target fixations and equivalent rates of fixations to distractors with opposite orientations. For most observers, the dual-target cost was predicted by an SDT model that simulated increases in decision-noise and the distribution of capacity-limited resources during the comparison of selected input against independently cued targets. For others, search accuracy was consistent with a single-item limit on perceptual decisions and saccadic targeting during search. These findings support a flexible account of the dual-target cost based on different strategies to resolve competition between independently cued targets.

The relationship between working memory and the dual-target cost in visual search guidance.

Searching for two targets produces a dual-target cost compared with single-target search, with reduced attentional guidance toward targets (Stroud, Menneer, Cave, & Donnelly, 2012). We explore the effect of holding a color in working memory (WM) on guidance in single-target search. In Experiments 1 and 2, participants searched for a T of a specific color while holding one of the following in WM: a color patch, a letter, a dot pattern, or an oriented bar. Only when holding a color in WM was guidance in single-target search affected as strongly as it is in dual-target search. In Experiment 3, the target changed color from trial to trial. A color in WM reduced guidance, but not to the extent of dual-target search. However, search and WM error rates were high, suggesting interference and incomplete engagement with the combined task. We conclude that the guidance cost in dual-target search is not solely due to attentional capture by the WM-color, because the WM-color can be effectively separated from search color, with little confusion between the two. However, WM load does cause substantial interference in guidance when both tasks involve color. These results illustrate the complex interactions between WM and attentional guidance. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Dual-target cost in visual search for multiple unfamiliar faces.

The efficiency of visual search for one (single-target) and either of two (dual-target) unfamiliar faces was explored to understand the manifestations of capacity and guidance limitations in face search. The visual similarity of distractor faces to target faces was manipulated using morphing (Experiments 1 and 2) and multidimensional scaling (Experiment 3). A dual-target cost was found in all experiments, evidenced by slower and less accurate search in dual- than single-target conditions. The dual-target cost was unequal across the targets, with performance being maintained on one target and reduced on the other, which we label "preferred" and "non-preferred" respectively. We calculated the capacity for each target face and show reduced capacity for representing the non-preferred target face. However, results show that the capacity for the non-preferred target can be increased when the dual-target condition is conducted after participants complete the single-target conditions. Analyses of eye movements revealed evidence for weak guidance of fixations in single-target search, and when searching for the preferred target in dual-target search. Overall, the experiments show dual-target search for faces is capacity- and guidance-limited, leading to superior search for 1 face over the other in dual-target search. However, learning faces individually may improve capacity with the second face. (PsycINFO Database Record

Faster than the speed of rejection: Object identification processes during visual search for multiple targets.

When engaged in a visual search for two targets, participants are slower and less accurate in their responses, relative to their performance when searching for singular targets. Previous work on this "dual-target cost" has primarily focused on the breakdown of attentional guidance when looking for two items. Here, we investigated how object identification processes are affected by dual-target search. Our goal was to chart the speed at which distractors could be rejected, to assess whether dual-target search impairs object identification. To do so, we examined the capacity coefficient, which measures the speed at which decisions can be made, and provides a baseline of parallel performance against which to compare. We found that participants could search at or above this baseline, suggesting that dual-target search does not impair object identification abilities. We also found substantial differences in performance when participants were asked to search for simple versus complex images. Somewhat paradoxically, participants were able to reject complex images more rapidly than simple images. We suggest that this reflects the greater number of features that can be used to identify complex images, a finding that has important consequences for understanding object identification in visual search more generally.

Attentional control via parallel target-templates in dual-target search.

Simultaneous search for two targets has been shown to be slower and less accurate than independent searches for the same two targets. Recent research suggests this ‘dual-target cost’ may be attributable to a limit in the number of target-templates than can guide search at any one time. The current study investigated this possibility by comparing behavioural responses during single- and dual-target searches for targets defined by their orientation. The results revealed an increase in reaction times for dual- compared to single-target searches that was largely independent of the number of items in the display. Response accuracy also decreased on dual- compared to single-target searches: dual-target accuracy was higher than predicted by a model restricting search guidance to a single target-template and lower than predicted by a model simulating two independent single-target searches. These results are consistent with a parallel model of dual-target search in which attentional control is exerted by more than one target-template at a time. The requirement to maintain two target-templates simultaneously, however, appears to impose a reduction in the specificity of the memory representation that guides search for each target.

Search for two categories of target produces fewer fixations to target-color items.

Searching simultaneously for metal threats (guns and knives) and improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in X-ray images is less effective than 2 independent single-target searches, 1 for metal threats and 1 for IEDs. The goals of this study were to (a) replicate this dual-target cost for categorical targets and to determine whether the cost remains when X-ray images overlap, (b) determine the role of attentional guidance in this dual-target cost by measuring eye movements, and (c) determine the effect of practice on guidance. Untrained participants conducted 5,376 trials of visual search of X-ray images, each specializing in single-target search for metal threats, single-target search for IEDs, or dual-target search for both. In dual-target search, only 1 target (metal threat or IED) at most appeared on any 1 trial. Eye movements, response time, and accuracy were compared across single-target and dual-target searches. Results showed a dual-target cost in response time, accuracy, and guidance, with fewer fixations to target-color objects and disproportionately more to non-target-color objects, compared with single-target search. Such reduction in guidance explains why targets are missed in dual-target search, which was particularly noticeable when objects overlapped. After extensive practice, accuracy, response time, and guidance remained better in single-target search than in dual-target search. The results indicate that, when 2 different target representations are required for search, both representations cannot be maintained as accurately as in separate single-target searches. They suggest that baggage X-ray security screeners should specialize in one type of threat, or be trained to conduct 2 independent searches, 1 for each threat item.

Using the dual-target cost to explore the nature of search target representations.

Eye movements were monitored to examine search efficiency and infer how color is mentally represented to guide search for multiple targets. Observers located a single color target very efficiently by fixating colors similar to the target. However, simultaneous search for 2 colors produced a dual-target cost. In addition, as the similarity between the 2 target colors decreased, search efficiency suffered, resulting in more fixations on colors dissimilar to both target colors, which we describe as a "split-target cost." The patterns of fixations provide evidence to the type of mental representations guiding search. When the 2 targets are dissimilar, they are apparently encoded as separate and discrete representations. The fixation patterns for more similar targets can be explained with either 2 discrete target representations or a single, unitary range containing the target colors as well as the colors between them in color space.

Dual-target search for high and low prevalence X-ray threat targets

Recent studies have shown that the prevalence of target presentation in visual search has an impact on target detection rates, and also that searching for two targets leads to a decrement in performance (the “dual-target cost”). In the present experiments, we added to previous work that has examined the interaction between the prevalence effect and dual-target cost, and also to previous work that has examined a full range of prevalence levels. We found no interaction between the dual-target cost and prevalence effect, though the response criterion in dual-target search did interact with target prevalence in an unexpected manner. Furthermore, we detected anasymmetry in the prevalence effect: It was more marked for high than low prevalence. Implications for real-world tasks are discussed.

Visual search training does not eliminate the dual-target cost in search for two types of target

Visual search training does not eliminate the dual-target cost in search for two types of target

The impact of Relative Prevalence on dual-target search for threat items from airport X-ray screening

The probability of target presentation in visual search tasks influences target detection performance: this is known as the prevalence effect ( Wolfe et al., 2005). Additionally, searching for several targets simultaneously reduces search performance: this is known as the dual-target cost (DTC: Menneer et al., 2007). The interaction between the DTC and prevalence effect was investigated in a single study by presenting one target in dual-target search at a higher level of prevalence than the other target (Target A: 45% Prevalence; Target B: 5% Prevalence). An overall DTC was found for both RTs and response accuracy. Furthermore, there was an effect of target prevalence in dual-target search, suggesting that, when one target is presented at a higher level of prevalence than the other, both the dual-target cost and the prevalence effect contribute to decrements in performance. The implications for airport X-ray screening are discussed.

High or low target prevalence increases the dual-target cost in visual search.

Previous studies have demonstrated a dual-target cost in visual search. In the current study, the relationship between search for one and search for two targets was investigated to examine the effects of target prevalence and practice. Color-shape conjunction stimuli were used with response time, accuracy and signal detection measures. Performance was lower in dual-target search compared with the combined performance for two independent single-target searches. The cost in response time slope disappeared with practice, but the cost in accuracy remained. Sensitivity was lower and the decision criterion more conservative in dual-target search than in single-target searches, suggesting that the representation of the target was less effective in dual-target search than in single-target search. Manipulation of target prevalence induced a bias in favor of the more likely correct response: target-present responses were likely under high target prevalence and target-absent responses were likely under low target prevalence. The prevalence effect was greater in dual-target search than single-target search, causing the dual-target cost to be larger under target prevalences that differed from 50%. These findings are important for applied tasks in which targets appear rarely and can differ from each other. For example, the low target prevalence in X-ray security searches may magnify the dual-target cost implicated in previous research with X-ray images (see Menneer, Cave, & Donnelly, 2009). Such a result would increase the need for security personnel to consider alternatives to dual-target search, such as specialization in detecting one target type or training to encourage independent searches for each target.

The cost of search for multiple targets: Effects of practice and target similarity.

With the use of X-ray images, performance in the simultaneous search for two target categories was compared with performance in two independent searches, one for each category. In all cases, displays contained one target at most. Dual-target search, for both categories simultaneously, produced a cost in accuracy, although the magnitude of this dual-target cost was affected by the nature of the targets. When target feature sets shared values, accuracy in dual-target search was equivalent to that in the less accurate of the two single-target searches. However, when targets comprised different feature sets, accuracy in dual-target search was lower than in either single-target search. These results held after practice. In conclusion, dual-target search performance depends on the target representations required for search. When combined representations contain conflicting values within the most informative feature dimensions, then there is a cost in performance. When target representations share features, the search can be guided by the common values so that resources are not wasted on irrelevant distractors. The implication is that security screener performance might be improved by specializing in searching for threat categories that share features. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved).