研究注意力策略选择的 "努力回避 "理论

IF 1.7 4区 心理学 Q3 PSYCHOLOGY
Tianyu Zhang, Andrew B. Leber
{"title":"研究注意力策略选择的 \"努力回避 \"理论","authors":"Tianyu Zhang,&nbsp;Andrew B. Leber","doi":"10.3758/s13414-024-02927-1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>People often choose suboptimal attentional control strategies during visual search. This has been at least partially attributed to the avoidance of the cognitive effort associated with the optimal strategy, but aspects of the task triggering such avoidance remain unclear. Here, we attempted to measure effort avoidance of an isolated task component to assess whether this component might drive suboptimal behavior. We adopted a modified version of the Adaptive Choice Visual Search (ACVS), a task designed to measure people’s visual search strategies. To perform optimally, participants must make a numerosity judgment—estimating and comparing two color sets—before they can advantageously search through the less numerous of the two. If participants skip the numerosity judgment step, they can still perform accurately, albeit substantially more slowly. To study whether effort associated with performing the optional numerosity judgment could be an obstacle to optimal performance, we created a variant of the demand selection task to quantify the avoidance of numerosity judgment effort. Results revealed a robust avoidance of the numerosity judgment, offering a potential explanation for why individuals choose suboptimal strategies in the ACVS task. Nevertheless, we did not find a significant relationship between individual numerosity judgment avoidance and ACVS optimality, and we discussed potential reasons for this lack of an observed relationship. Altogether, our results showed that the effort avoidance for specific subcomponents of a visual search task can be probed and linked to overall strategy choices.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":55433,"journal":{"name":"Attention Perception & Psychophysics","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11411006/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Investigating an effort avoidance account of attentional strategy choice\",\"authors\":\"Tianyu Zhang,&nbsp;Andrew B. Leber\",\"doi\":\"10.3758/s13414-024-02927-1\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>People often choose suboptimal attentional control strategies during visual search. This has been at least partially attributed to the avoidance of the cognitive effort associated with the optimal strategy, but aspects of the task triggering such avoidance remain unclear. Here, we attempted to measure effort avoidance of an isolated task component to assess whether this component might drive suboptimal behavior. We adopted a modified version of the Adaptive Choice Visual Search (ACVS), a task designed to measure people’s visual search strategies. To perform optimally, participants must make a numerosity judgment—estimating and comparing two color sets—before they can advantageously search through the less numerous of the two. If participants skip the numerosity judgment step, they can still perform accurately, albeit substantially more slowly. To study whether effort associated with performing the optional numerosity judgment could be an obstacle to optimal performance, we created a variant of the demand selection task to quantify the avoidance of numerosity judgment effort. Results revealed a robust avoidance of the numerosity judgment, offering a potential explanation for why individuals choose suboptimal strategies in the ACVS task. Nevertheless, we did not find a significant relationship between individual numerosity judgment avoidance and ACVS optimality, and we discussed potential reasons for this lack of an observed relationship. Altogether, our results showed that the effort avoidance for specific subcomponents of a visual search task can be probed and linked to overall strategy choices.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55433,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Attention Perception & Psychophysics\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-26\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11411006/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Attention Perception & Psychophysics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-024-02927-1\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Attention Perception & Psychophysics","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/s13414-024-02927-1","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

在视觉搜索过程中,人们经常会选择次优的注意力控制策略。这至少部分归因于避免与最优策略相关的认知努力,但引发这种避免的任务方面仍不清楚。在此,我们尝试测量一个孤立任务部分的努力回避,以评估该部分是否可能驱动次优行为。我们采用了自适应选择视觉搜索(ACVS)的改进版,这是一项旨在测量人们视觉搜索策略的任务。为了达到最佳效果,参与者必须先进行数量判断--估计并比较两组颜色--然后才能在数量较少的两组颜色中进行有利的搜索。如果参与者跳过数量判断这一步骤,他们仍然可以准确地完成搜索,只是速度要慢得多。为了研究与进行可选数字判断相关的努力是否会成为最佳表现的障碍,我们创建了一个需求选择任务的变体,以量化避免数字判断的努力。结果表明,在 ACVS 任务中,个体对数字判断的回避程度很高,这为个体选择次优策略提供了可能的解释。尽管如此,我们并没有发现个体数字判断回避与 ACVS 优化之间存在显著的关系,我们也讨论了这种关系缺失的潜在原因。总之,我们的研究结果表明,可以对视觉搜索任务中特定子部分的努力回避进行探究,并将其与整体策略选择联系起来。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Investigating an effort avoidance account of attentional strategy choice

Investigating an effort avoidance account of attentional strategy choice

People often choose suboptimal attentional control strategies during visual search. This has been at least partially attributed to the avoidance of the cognitive effort associated with the optimal strategy, but aspects of the task triggering such avoidance remain unclear. Here, we attempted to measure effort avoidance of an isolated task component to assess whether this component might drive suboptimal behavior. We adopted a modified version of the Adaptive Choice Visual Search (ACVS), a task designed to measure people’s visual search strategies. To perform optimally, participants must make a numerosity judgment—estimating and comparing two color sets—before they can advantageously search through the less numerous of the two. If participants skip the numerosity judgment step, they can still perform accurately, albeit substantially more slowly. To study whether effort associated with performing the optional numerosity judgment could be an obstacle to optimal performance, we created a variant of the demand selection task to quantify the avoidance of numerosity judgment effort. Results revealed a robust avoidance of the numerosity judgment, offering a potential explanation for why individuals choose suboptimal strategies in the ACVS task. Nevertheless, we did not find a significant relationship between individual numerosity judgment avoidance and ACVS optimality, and we discussed potential reasons for this lack of an observed relationship. Altogether, our results showed that the effort avoidance for specific subcomponents of a visual search task can be probed and linked to overall strategy choices.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.60
自引率
17.60%
发文量
197
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The journal Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics is an official journal of the Psychonomic Society. It spans all areas of research in sensory processes, perception, attention, and psychophysics. Most articles published are reports of experimental work; the journal also presents theoretical, integrative, and evaluative reviews. Commentary on issues of importance to researchers appears in a special section of the journal. Founded in 1966 as Perception & Psychophysics, the journal assumed its present name in 2009.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信