Exploring the Third Dimension of Visual Search
Presentation Type
Poster
Abstract
Previous research has suggested that the presence of depth cues may facilitate search performance (e.g., faster RTs for 3-D vs 2-D displays). Here, search arrays were constructed with “T” targets among “L” distractors at two set sizes (18 & 24) at various orientations. To create a percept of depth, 3-D items were rendered with a bevel at three depths and 2-D stimuli were created without a bevel at three sizes to control for a potential size confound. Participants were instructed to search and respond to the presence of a “T” target on each trial – no specific target preview was provided and participants received feedback on every trial. Participants either searched only through 3-D arrays or only through 2-D arrays. The results supported previous findings. Overall, participants in the 3-D condition were faster at detecting the target, but this RT advantage was attenuated as set size increased in target present trials (~217 ms advantage at set size 18 compared to ~61 ms at set size 24). In target absent trials, the RT advantage for 3-D arrays remained intact across set size (~418 ms advantage at set size 18 compared to ~555 ms at set size 24). Accuracy did not differ significantly across the 2-D and 3-D conditions. Overall, these results suggest that the addition of depth may provide a valuable cue for facilitating visual search behavior, but that its utility may diminish as search displays become more complex or cluttered.
Exploring the Third Dimension of Visual Search
Previous research has suggested that the presence of depth cues may facilitate search performance (e.g., faster RTs for 3-D vs 2-D displays). Here, search arrays were constructed with “T” targets among “L” distractors at two set sizes (18 & 24) at various orientations. To create a percept of depth, 3-D items were rendered with a bevel at three depths and 2-D stimuli were created without a bevel at three sizes to control for a potential size confound. Participants were instructed to search and respond to the presence of a “T” target on each trial – no specific target preview was provided and participants received feedback on every trial. Participants either searched only through 3-D arrays or only through 2-D arrays. The results supported previous findings. Overall, participants in the 3-D condition were faster at detecting the target, but this RT advantage was attenuated as set size increased in target present trials (~217 ms advantage at set size 18 compared to ~61 ms at set size 24). In target absent trials, the RT advantage for 3-D arrays remained intact across set size (~418 ms advantage at set size 18 compared to ~555 ms at set size 24). Accuracy did not differ significantly across the 2-D and 3-D conditions. Overall, these results suggest that the addition of depth may provide a valuable cue for facilitating visual search behavior, but that its utility may diminish as search displays become more complex or cluttered.