IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0302751.html

Comparing the impact of contextual associations and statistical regularities in visual search and attention orienting

Author

Listed:
  • Marcus Sefranek
  • Nahid Zokaei
  • Dejan Draschkow
  • Anna C Nobre

Abstract

During visual search, we quickly learn to attend to an object’s likely location. Research has shown that this process can be guided by learning target locations based on consistent spatial contextual associations or other statistical regularities. Here, we tested how different types of associations guide learning and the utilisation of established memories for different purposes. Participants learned contextual associations or rule-like statistical regularities that predicted target locations within different scenes. The consequences of this learning for subsequent performance were then evaluated on attention-orienting and memory-recall tasks. Participants demonstrated facilitated attention-orienting and recall performance based on both contextual associations and statistical regularities. Contextual associations facilitated attention orienting with a different time course compared to statistical regularities. Benefits to memory-recall performance depended on the alignment between the learned association or regularity and the recall demands. The distinct patterns of behavioural facilitation by contextual associations and statistical regularities show how different forms of long-term memory may influence neural information processing through different modulatory mechanisms.

Suggested Citation

  • Marcus Sefranek & Nahid Zokaei & Dejan Draschkow & Anna C Nobre, 2024. "Comparing the impact of contextual associations and statistical regularities in visual search and attention orienting," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 19(11), pages 1-21, November.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0302751
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0302751
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0302751
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0302751&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0302751?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Clifford, Scott & Jerit, Jennifer, 2014. "Is There a Cost to Convenience? An Experimental Comparison of Data Quality in Laboratory and Online Studies," Journal of Experimental Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 1(2), pages 120-131, January.
    2. Berinsky, Adam J. & Huber, Gregory A. & Lenz, Gabriel S., 2012. "Evaluating Online Labor Markets for Experimental Research: Amazon.com's Mechanical Turk," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 20(3), pages 351-368, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Jimin Pyo & Michael G. Maxfield, 2021. "Cognitive Effects of Inattentive Responding in an MTurk Sample," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 102(4), pages 2020-2039, July.
    2. Burdea, Valeria & Woon, Jonathan, 2022. "Online belief elicitation methods," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    3. Nicolas Jacquemet & Alexander G James & Stéphane Luchini & James J Murphy & Jason F Shogren, 2021. "Do truth-telling oaths improve honesty in crowd-working?," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(1), pages 1-18, January.
    4. Felix Bader & Bastian Baumeister & Roger Berger & Marc Keuschnigg, 2021. "On the Transportability of Laboratory Results," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 50(3), pages 1452-1481, August.
    5. Alempaki, Despoina & Starmer, Chris & Tufano, Fabio, 2019. "On the priming of risk preferences: The role of fear and general affect," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 75(PA).
    6. Robbett, Andrea & Matthews, Peter Hans, 2018. "Partisan bias and expressive voting," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 157(C), pages 107-120.
    7. Jack Patterson & Gwendolyn Paige Watson & Anna Baker & Robert R. Sinclair & Karyn Jones, 2024. "Economic Stress and Healthcare Adherence: The Influence of Job Insecurity and Income Adequacy," SAGE Open, , vol. 14(4), pages 21582440241, October.
    8. Jasper Grashuis & Theodoros Skevas & Michelle S. Segovia, 2020. "Grocery Shopping Preferences during the COVID-19 Pandemic," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-10, July.
    9. Jeanette A.M.J. Deetlefs & Mathew Chylinski & Andreas Ortmann, 2015. "MTurk ‘Unscrubbed’: Exploring the good, the ‘Super’, and the unreliable on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk," Discussion Papers 2015-20, School of Economics, The University of New South Wales.
    10. Emma Galli & Giampaolo Garzarelli & Gabriele Pinto & Massimo Pulejo, 2026. "Do voters use information on candidates? Experimental evidence from a recent election," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 206(3), pages 489-519, March.
    11. Cantarella, Michele & Strozzi, Chiara, 2019. "Workers in the Crowd: The Labour Market Impact of the Online Platform Economy," IZA Discussion Papers 12327, IZA Network @ LISER.
    12. John Hulland & Jeff Miller, 2018. "“Keep on Turkin’”?," Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, Springer, vol. 46(5), pages 789-794, September.
    13. Kyungsik Han, 2018. "How do you perceive this author? Understanding and modeling authors’ communication quality in social media," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(2), pages 1-25, February.
    14. Azzam, Tarek & Harman, Elena, 2016. "Crowdsourcing for quantifying transcripts: An exploratory study," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 63-73.
    15. Barton, Jared & Pan, Xiaofei, 2022. "Movin’ on up? A survey experiment on mobility enhancing policies," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 74(C).
    16. Henning Holgersen & Zhiyang Jia & Simen Svenkerud, 2021. "Who and how many can work from home? Evidence from task descriptions," Journal for Labour Market Research, Springer;Institute for Employment Research/ Institut für Arbeitsmarkt- und Berufsforschung (IAB), vol. 55(1), pages 1-13, December.
    17. Gandullia, Luca & Lezzi, Emanuela & Parciasepe, Paolo, 2020. "Replication with MTurk of the experimental design by Gangadharan, Grossman, Jones & Leister (2018): Charitable giving across donor types," Journal of Economic Psychology, Elsevier, vol. 78(C).
    18. Prissé, Benjamin & Jorrat, Diego, 2022. "Lab vs online experiments: No differences," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 100(C).
    19. Phillips, Duygu & Edwards, Bryan D. & Rutherford, Matthew W., 2025. "Conformity or Differentiation: Optimal distinctiveness through mediating channels," Journal of Business Research, Elsevier, vol. 189(C).
    20. Min Chung Han, 2021. "Thumbs down on “likes”? The impact of Facebook reactions on online consumers’ nonprofit engagement behavior," International Review on Public and Nonprofit Marketing, Springer;International Association of Public and Non-Profit Marketing, vol. 18(2), pages 255-272, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0302751. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.