Does Previewing One Stimulus Feature Help Conjunction Search?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the effects of previewing one aspect of a search display, in order to determine what subset of display information is most useful as a prelude to a search task. Observers were asked to indicate the presence or absence of a known target, in a conjunction search where the target was defined by the combination of colour and orientation (a yellow horizontal line presented among yellow vertical and pink horizontal distractors). In the colour preview condition of experiment 1, observers were first shown a 1 s preview of the locations and colours of the search items before the actual search set was presented. That is, search items first appeared as yellow and pink squares for 1 s, which each then turned into yellow and pink oriented lines (in the same locations) which comprised the display to be searched. In the orientation preview condition, observers were first shown a 1 s preview of the locations and orientations of the search items before the actual search display was presented. These two conditions were compared to a control condition consisting of standard conjunction search without any preview display. There was no effect of colour preview; there was a marginal effect of orientation preview, but in the opposite direction from what was expected reaction time increased for orientation preview searches. In experiment 2 these previews were compared to two spatial cueing conditions; in this experiment the colour preview did provide a small amount of help. Finally, in experiment 3 both previews were presented in succession, and increased facilitation was found, in particular when the colour preview preceded the orientation preview. These findings are discussed in relation to the literature, in particular the Guided Search model (Wolfe et al 1989 Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 15 419-433; Wolfe 1994 Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 1 202-238).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it