Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-7zcd7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-10T18:30:11.970Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An appeal against the item's death sentence: Accounting for diagnostic data patterns with an item-based model of visual search

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 May 2017

Rani Moran ,
Heinrich René Liesefeld ,
Marius Usher  and
Hermann J. Müller
Rani Moran
Affiliation:
Max Planck UCL Centre for Computational Psychiatry and Ageing Research, London WC1B 5EH, United Kingdom; rani.moran@gmail.com https://iris.ucl.ac.uk/iris/browse/profile?upi=RMORA40 Wellcome Trust Centre for Neuroimaging, University College London, London WC1N 3BG, United Kingdom; School of Psychological Sciences and Sagol School of Neuroscience, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel; marius@post.tau.ac.il https://en-social-sciences.tau.ac.il/profile/marius
Heinrich René Liesefeld
Affiliation:
Department Psychologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, D-80802 Munich, Germany; heinrich.liesefeld@psy.lmu.de hmueller@psy.lmu.de http://www.psy.lmu.de/exp/people/ma/liesefeld_hr/ http://www.psy.lmu.de/exp/people/prof/mueller/
Marius Usher
Affiliation:
School of Psychological Sciences and Sagol School of Neuroscience, Tel Aviv University, Ramat Aviv, Tel-Aviv 69978, Israel; marius@post.tau.ac.il https://en-social-sciences.tau.ac.il/profile/marius
Hermann J. Müller
Affiliation:
Department Psychologie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München, D-80802 Munich, Germany; heinrich.liesefeld@psy.lmu.de hmueller@psy.lmu.de http://www.psy.lmu.de/exp/people/ma/liesefeld_hr/ http://www.psy.lmu.de/exp/people/prof/mueller/ Department of Psychological Sciences, Birkbeck College, University of London, London WC1E 7HX, United Kingdom.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

We show that our item-based model, competitive guided search, accounts for the empirical patterns that Hulleman & Olivers (H&O) invoke against item-based models, and we highlight recently reported diagnostic data that challenge their approach. We advise against “forsaking the item” unless and until a full fixation-based model is shown to be superior to extant item-based models.

Information

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Information
Behavioral and Brain Sciences , Volume 40 , 2017 , e148
Check for updates
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2017 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Jones, M. & Dzhafarov, E. N. (2014) Unfalsifiability and mutual translatability of major modeling schemes for choice reaction time. Psychological Review 121(1):1–32.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liesefeld, H. R., Moran, R., Usher, M., Müller, H. J. & Zehetleitner, M. (2016) Search efficiency as a function of target saliency: The transition from inefficient to efficient search and beyond. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance 42(6):821–36. doi: 10.1037/xhp0000156.Google ScholarPubMed
Moran, R., Zehetleitner, M., Liesefeld, H. R., Müller, H. J., & Usher, M. (2016) Serial vs. parallel models of attention in visual search: accounting for benchmark RT-distributions. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review 23:1300–15. doi: 10.3758/s13423-015-0978-1.Google Scholar
Moran, R., Zehetleitner, M., Müller, H. J. & Usher, M. (2013) Competitive guided search: Meeting the challenge of benchmark RT-distributions. Journal of Vision 13(8):24. doi: 10.1167/13.8.24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wolfe, J. M., Palmer, E. M. & Horowitz, T. S. (2010b) Reaction time distributions constrain models of visual search. Vision Research 50:1304–11.Google Scholar