Cognitive research

Abstract:

Anne Treisman and Garry Gelade developed a theory called the feature integration theory. That tested the attention in reaction time in simple and conjunction feature.  Simple feature required one feature and conjunction feature required two features to determine the target. The participant was psychology students at the University of Bradford. The experiment was a repeated measure and within-subject design.  The results show that conjunction required more reaction time and the distractors more complicated and need more attention for determining the target.

Introduction:

Visual search is the ability to observe the external environment using our eyes and attention, which allows us to move, read, see and other skills that make our life easier.

A different meaning for Visual search is the observe of the visual system uses attentional methods to target something in a word full of other items. Recent researchers defined visual research as “ a signal detection problem with multiple noise sources “. (M. Wolfe and  J. Reynolds, 2008 ) . Visual search accurse by visual perception which is the sensory system that received the information from the environment through the light enters to our eyes and transmit sensory information to the brain that makes sense for the view that eye received. Visual research experiment required distractor for the discovery of a target in the attendance of several non-target features. It counts depend on the reaction time needed for a single development.

Visual attention is the capacity to concentrate on a specified location of an image. Visual attention requires lots of attention to determine the target. According to researcher’s visual attention define as using a cognitive process that helps to mediate the range of relevant and clarifying out irrelevant information from cluttered visual scenes.  (Treue and Katzner, 2009) . Measuring Visual attention links to measuring attention. In another hand,  Other researchers measured concentration by spatial attention tasks. The standard by enhanced activity in retinol topic cortical areas representing the location of the motivate attention. The results show that stimuli at attended locations are processed faster and more accurate compared to stimuli at unattended locations. (Treue and Katzner, 2009).

In 1980 Anne Treisman and Garry Gelade developed an attention theory called feature integration theory which suggests reaction times(RT) increased linearly throughout a set of size when examining conjunction of two features, but where it’s unchanged by set size when studying for a single element. (Lynn C. Robertson, 2005) . This research depends on the ratio of the distractors range to target and attention, according to the previous experiment when there are small distracters range (distractors similar to each other ) and the goal significantly different than all the other distractors, the search would be faster than

When there is highly differences between the distractors, and the target is more difficult to determine. (Avraham et al., 2008) .also, Treisman and Garry Gelade suggest that the time increased linearly with display size in the conjunction condition.

The simple feature target required one feature (e.g., yellow or letter ) to recognize the goal, the distractors are similar to each other, and the objective is less identical to the distractors. The target can have detected with no attention limits. According to the previous studies, lots of researchers suggests that “if a target can be separated from distractors by a single line in a feature space, the search will be easy, but otherwise hard” Arguin and Saumier, 2000; Bauer et al., 1996a,b; Nakayama and Martini, 2011; but see Vighneshvel and Arun, 2013).

Conjunction feature required number of different functions ( e.g., small blue letter in the background of red and blue big and small letters ), it has a group of various distractors that has a standard feature with the target. Conjunction feature needs focal attention and a significant number of search features in the display ( set size ) for the recognition of the goal. Also, it needs a full serial scan of all the distractors to find the target. In another hand, Wolfe and Horowitz suggest that when the number of distraction increased the time to find a goal raised too.

The aim of the experiment to test the time that observes in finding simple or conjunction feature target from several different distractors and the requirement of attention limits.

Based on previous literature, the hypothesis suggests RTs for simple feature search will remain consistent as display size increases. In contrast, for the conjunction feature search, the RTs will increase as display size increases.

Methods:

Participant: There were 80 participant students from the University of Bradford, and they were from the Cognitive Psychology class.

Design:

The design of the experiment was within-subjects design repeated measure (one way ANOVA). The dependent variables are the reaction time taken to find the target and the independent variable is the number of distractors increasing in each display size. The experiment t directed of the participant induvial using the university lap.

Materials:

The participant used the lab for experimenting. The file is called TRIESMAN.ES2 FILE in canvas and following messages that the file asked. They were two states to analyse simple and conjunction, each one has four levels which (display size 1, 5, 15 and 30). There were 24 trials for each search state, 12 had the target-present, and 12 had the target-absent.  Besides, the trials of different display sizes existed randomly.

Procedure:

All the participant take place in cognitive psychology. The structured had explained to the participant. The experiment takes around 3-4 minute. Before the trails began the participant gave a specific target, the target might be a letter or colour, for example, blue letter, any brown or green letter O or green letter N. participant press “Y” key if objective is on the screen and press “N” key if the goal not on the screen. Participant press “spacebar “to the next step. They have told if their answer is correct or incorrect.

Results:

The table displays the means and the slandered deviation for simple feature test :

This table shows the means and standard deviation for simple features.  The pattern of factors and SD suggests that participants have a convergent result for responded to the visual task, suggesting that participants meet more similarly in this group.  The SDS is quite small, implying that there is no significant variance in the group. Even though there is little variance, the Mauchly’s test of sphericity is non-significant ( F (3,23) =.52, p>0.05 ).

The table displays the means and the slandered deviation for conjunction  feature test :

The table shows the means and standard division for conjunction features. There is a significant difference in means and SD between variables, the highest SD is (55.96) for conjunction _30, and lowest SD is (35.80) for combination _1. There is a noticeable increase means and SD; SD is a high number, suggests is variance group.

They were significantly difference between the 1,5,15 and 30  conjunction features (F(2.58,203.9) = 37451.05, p<0.01 )  .pairwise comparison table  reveal that the  display size 1 was faster reaction time than display size 2,3and 4 (p<0.01) , display size 2 was faster reaction time than display size 3 and 4 (p<0.01)  and  display size 3 was faster than display size 4 (p<0.01) .

Discussion:

According to the previous results, this experiment had supported the Treisman and Gelade feature integration theory. There are two features in the visual research experiment, the single feature which had been identified rapidly according to the results. The means were similar, and the SD was low, that suggests that the distractors were identical, and the reaction time was fast. Therefore, the conjunction feature took longer time to identify, according to the results, the means and SD numbers were profoundly different between each variable and that suggests the target were difficult to determine. It took long RT and required lots of attention.

This experiment had matched and supported the previous literature that conjunction feature requests a longer time to determine than a single element. Also, the results matched my hypothesis, which is conjunction has more complicated distractors and need more attention and RT to identify the targets.

There are some methodological problems in the experiment; the problem is the number of the participant. There were less than 100 participants and that cause less accurate; some student may have attention and focus problem that day and others may press the wronged key while experimenting and that’s all affect the results and difficulty to find significant relationship from the data. Large sample size in statistical test helps to confirm a representative distribution of the population and to be measured representative of groups of people to whom results will be oversimplified or transferred.

According to the experiment aimed to test the visual attention, tutors must situate participant in a specific situation, ensuring that they are entirely focused and having high concentration during the investigation and State the participant in the test condition.

Another experiment that helps to understand visual processing is guided search theory that proposed in 1989 by a cognitive psychologist called Jeremy M. Wolfe, Susan L. Franzel and Kyle R. Cave. It consists of 2 stages and Focuses searched sets of items for targets stated by conjunctions of colour and form, colour and orientation, or colour and size. The reaction time and the set size were measured.

References:

• McMains S.A., Kastner S. (2009) Visual Attention. In: Binder M.D., Hirokawa N., Windhorst U. (eds) Encyclopedia of Neuroscience. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-3-540-29678-2_6344 [accessed:20/11/2019]

• Treue and S.Katzner (2009), visual attension , Encyclopedia of Neuroscience , page 243-250 available at : https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780080450469002424 [accessed: 20/11/2019]

• Ronald A.Rensink (2005 ). change Blindness, Neurobiology of attention,  page: 76-81, available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123757319500173 [accessed:20/11/2019]

• Jacob A. Burack, Tamara Dawkins, Jillian Stewart, Heidi Flores, Grace Iarocci, Natalie Russo ( 2012 ), Chapter Six – “The Mysterious Myth of Attention Deficit…” Revisited: A Discussion of How the Developmental Approach is Transforming the Understanding of Intellectual Disability, the international review of research in developmental disabilities, volume 42, page: 147-177, available: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780123942845000061, [ accessed: 20/11/2019].

• Andrey Chetverikov, Gianluca Campana, Arni Kistjansson (2017),  Learning features in a complex and changing environment: A distribution-based framework for visual attention and vision in general, progress in brain research, volume 236, pages 97-120, available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0079612317300778 [ accessed: 21/11/2019]

• J M Wolfe, J Reynolds (2008), The Senses: comprehensive references,  pages: 4694, ISBN: 978-0-12-370880-9, available at https://www.sciencedirect.com/referencework/9780123708809/the-senses-a-comprehensive-reference [ accessed: 21/11/2019 ].

• Anne M. Treisman, Garry Gelad (1980), A feature – Integration Theory of Attention, volume:12, pages 97-136, available at http://iihm.imag.fr/blanch/teaching/infovis/readings/1980-Treisman_Gelade-Feature_Integration_Theory.pdf [ accessed: 21/11/2019].

• Wolfe JM, Cave KR, Franzel SL (1989), Guided search: An alternative to the feature integration model for visual search, Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform, volume 15(3), pages: 419-33, available at https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2527952