Journal of Vision (2015) 15(14):8, 1–7 1

Intertrial of popout search on visual prior entry Department of Psychology, University of Scranton, # Bryan R. Burnham Scranton, PA, USA $

When the features of a visual target and of nontargets colors switched between trials. This priming of popout are repeated between successive search displays, (PoP) or intertrial priming effect has been observed with responding to a subsequent target is faster than when color (Goolsby & Suzuki, 2001), orientation (Hill- the features of the target and the nontargets switch strom, 2000), shape (Lamy, Carmel, Egeth, & Leber, between trials. This intertrial priming effect can 2006), and spatial position (Maljkovic & Nakayama, influence perceptual processes, postperceptual 1996). Hence, priming’s effect on is processes (e.g., episodic retrieval), or both. Previous ubiquitous and has been influential to our under- studies have shown that repeating irrelevant visual standing of visual processing. One issue is whether features that do not define the target or the response repeating task-relevant (target-defining) visual features can influence postperceptual processes. The present and task-irrelevant visual features affect perceptual study examined whether intertrial priming by irrelevant processing or later stages of processing such as features also influences perceptual processes. Subjects completed a temporal order judgment task that responding or episodic retrieval. This study used a appeared within a popout visual search display temporal order judgment (TOJ) task to examine whether containing a color singleton among nonsingletons, all of repeating irrelevant features between displays influ- which served as placeholders for two probes. Intertrial ences perceptual processing. priming by the placeholder colors shifted the Maljkovic and Nakayama (1994, 1996, 2000) found psychometric function. Specifically, the probes appearing that only features that were relevant to locating a target at the color singleton in the switch condition needed to influenced visual search on subsequent trials. For appear earlier than the probes at the color singleton in example, when the target-defining dimension was color, the repeat condition to be perceived simultaneous with as in Maljkovic and Nakayama (1996), repeating the the probes on a nonsingleton. This suggests there was an target’s color (relevant feature) influenced responding, influence of intertrial priming by the irrelevant colors on but repeating the target’s shape (irrelevant feature) did visual prior entry; hence, repeating irrelevant features not. They also found that repeating the target’s color, between trials can influence perpetual processes. shape, and spatial position produced an additive effect on performance, suggesting those three properties (color, shape, position) were represented separately in . Because repeating those properties affected Introduction performance independently, Maljkovic and Nakayama (1994, 1996, 2000) concluded that intertrial priming In visual search tasks, by repeating object properties facilitated attentional deployment to objects that between successive displays, visual search for upcoming shared features with previous targets. Thus, because targets can be facilitated (e.g., Chun & Jiang, 1998; attended objects are perceived before unattended Chun & Nakayama, 2000; Kristja´nsson & Campana, objects a la Titchener’s Law of Prior Entry (Shore & 2010; Kristja´nsson, Saevarsson, & Driver, 2013; Lamy, Spence, 2005; Spence & Parise, 2010; Titchener, 1908), Yashar & Ruderman, 2010; Maljkovic & Nakayama, intertrial priming likely affected perceptual processing. 1994, 1996, 2000; Meeter & Olivers, 2006; Mu¨ller, Huang, Holcombe, and Pashler (2004; see also Heller, & Ziegler, 1995; Wolfe, Butcher, Lee, & Hyle, Huang & Pashler, 2005; Thomson & Milliken, 2011, 2003). For example, Maljkovic and Nakayama (1994) 2012, 2013) challenged this conclusion by demonstrat- found that during visual search for a feature singleton ing that repeating a relevant, target-defining feature target (a red diamond among green diamonds or a interacted with repeating an irrelevant, nonspatial green diamond among red diamonds), responding was feature. Huang et al. (2004) varied visual targets along faster when the target and distractor colors repeated three dimensions (size, color, orientation) with one between trials than when the target and distractor being the target-defining feature (size in Experiment 1),

Citation: Burnham, B. R. (2015). Intertrial priming of popout search on visual prior entry. Journal of Vision, 15(14):8, 1–7, doi:10. 1167/15.14.8.

doi: 10.1167/15.14.8 Received March 3, 2015; published October 16, 2015 ISSN 1534-7362 Ó 2015 ARVO

Downloaded from iovs.arvojournals.org on 09/30/2021 Journal of Vision (2015) 15(14):8, 1–7 Burnham 2

one being irrelevant (color), and one being the response accuracy on masked displays, eye movement). A more feature (orientation). They found that repeating the direct measure of perceptual prioritization would be a relevant feature (size) interacted with repeating the TOJ task, in which observers judge the order of the response feature (orientation) and interacted with appearance of two asynchronous probes, and examine repeating the irrelevant feature (color). Huang et al. whether intertrial priming influenced TOJs (Shore & (2004; Huang & Pashler, 2005) concluded that because Spence, 2005; Spence & Parise, 2010). the effect of repeating the relevant feature interacted For example, Theeuwes and Van der Burg (2013) with repeating an irrelevant feature and interacted with used a TOJ task to examine whether a centrally-located repeating the response feature, intertrial priming prime influenced visual prior entry—the perceived affected postperceptual processes. That is, priming order of appearance—of two peripheral probes. A affected a later stage of processing, during which colored circle prime (red or green circle) appeared at information from independent memory stores com- fixation and was followed by one red probe and one bined to influence performance (Neill, 1997). green probe, one to the left and one to the right of However, postperceptual explanations of intertrial fixation, and subjects judged which probe (left or right) priming have been challenged. For example, Becker appeared first. Theeuwes and Van der Burg (2013) (2008a, 2008b) observed how repeating a relevant, observed a shift in the psychometric function between target-defining feature sped target fixation latencies and the primed probe and unprimed probe conditions. sped saccades away from fixation, which are physio- Specifically, the probe that matched the prime’s color logical measures unrelated to postperceptual response (primed probe) was perceived to appear before the processes. Becker (2008a) also observed a greater probe that did not match the prime’s color (unprimed number of nontarget fixations when the target and probe), suggesting an influence of feature priming on nontarget features switched between trials, suggesting visual prior entry. the previous target feature was prioritized on the To examine whether repeating irrelevant visual following trial. Additionally, Lamy et al. (2010; Yashar features between successive search displays influences & Lamy, 2011) found that the interaction between perceptual prioritization, in the present study subjects target feature repetition and response feature repeti- viewed displays that contained four colored squares tion, which was observed by Huang et al. (2004), (green and red), one of which was a color singleton. required time to manifest. In Lamy et al.’s (2010) study, Unlike other intertrial priming studies in which a a color change to the display objects occurred 100 ms to repeated feature was relevant to locating the target, the 400 ms after the display’s onset. For example, a display squares served as placeholders for where two probes could initially contain a red target and green non- appeared as part of a TOJ task. Two probes were targets, but after 100 to 400 ms the target changed to presented on two placeholders and subjects indicated blue and the nontargets changed to yellow. Target which appeared first. Hence, the placeholder colors color repetition sped responding at all color-change were task-irrelevant, because they did not define the delays, but repeating the response feature interacted target or its position and did not require a response. with repeating the target color only when the colors on Between trials the placeholder colors repeated or the current trial were presented for at least 200 ms. switched and the point of subjective equality (PSE)— Because response feature repetition required time to time needed to perceive both probes simultaneously— influence performance, but target color repetition did was calculated when the colors repeated and when the not, Lamy et al. (2010) proposed a dual-stage account colors switched. If repeating the irrelevant colors of intertrial priming, which states that priming influ- influenced visual prior entry, the PSE should be shifted ences both perceptual processes and postperceptual between the switch and repeat conditions. Specifically, response processes. Indeed, in their review of the for subjects to perceive the two probes simultaneously, literature, Kristja´nsson and Campana (2010) concluded probes on the unprimed color singleton (switch no single process accounted for all intertrial priming condition) would need to appear earlier than probes effects on visual search. appearing on the primed color singleton (repeat One issue in these studies is that the repeated feature condition). was always target-defining; hence, it was always task- relevant. It may be that intertrial priming by relevant features affects both perceptual processes and post- Methods perceptual processes, but it remains to be seen whether priming by irrelevant features, as observed by Huang et al. (2004), affects only postperceptual processes or also Subjects affects perceptual processes. Another issue is that previous studies used indirect measures to assess Ten undergraduates from the University of Scranton priming’s influence on perceptual prioritization (e.g., participated (six females; one left handed; age 18 to 21

Downloaded from iovs.arvojournals.org on 09/30/2021 Journal of Vision (2015) 15(14):8, 1–7 Burnham 3

Figure 1. Example trial sequence (top, Trial N-1) used in the TOJ task and examples of a repeat trial and switch trial (bottom, Trial N). Assignment of trials to the repeat and switch conditions was based on whether the placeholder colors in the current trial repeated or switched, respectively, from the preceding trial. Displays are not to scale.

years, M ¼ 19.40, SD ¼ 0.97) and received credit toward GHz). Subjects sat 60 cm away from a Dell E178Fpv a requirement in a psychology course. All reported monitor (Dell Computers) (1024 3 768) that was normal or corrected-to-normal vision. The study was adjusted so the center of the screen was at each approved by the Psychology Departmental Review subject’s eye level. Board and was conducted according to guidelines established by the American Psychological Association and US Department of Health and Human Services Stimuli regarding research with humans. Subjects signed a consent form before beginning the study. Displays (Figure 1) were presented on a gray 2 background (20.98 cd/m ; RGB: 125, 125, 125; CIExy: 0.313, 0.329). A black fixation cross (0.165 cd/m2; Apparatus RGB: 0, 0, 0) measuring 0.38830.388 was presented throughout each trial. All displays except the fixation Each subject’s color vision was screened using the and mask displays contained red (20.44 cd/m2; RGB: 2 Ishihara colorblindness test, which all subjects passed. 255, 0, 0; CIExy: 0.634, 0.323) and green (20.62 cd/m ; The experiment was programmed and presented using RGB: 10, 177, 31; CIExy: 0.287, 0.514) squares (1.6283 E-Prime software (v2.0.10242, Psychology Software 1.628) that served as placeholders for where two probes Tools, Pittsburgh, PA) on a Dell 755 computer (Dell appeared in the TOJ task. The squares appeared 458, Computers, Round Rock, TX) equipped with a 1358, 2258, and 3158 around fixation and the distance Pentium Core 2 Duo processor (1.96 GB RAM, 2.33 between fixation and the center of each square was

Downloaded from iovs.arvojournals.org on 09/30/2021 Journal of Vision (2015) 15(14):8, 1–7 Burnham 4

The singleton color, singleton location, first probe location, and stimulus onset asynchrony (SOA) be- tween probes were chosen randomly on each trial. Only trials on which a probe appeared at the color singleton placeholder were analyzed as trials when both probes appeared in nonsingleton placeholders would not address priming; thus, only 50% of a subject’s responses were analyzed. Each trial was classified by whether the placeholder colors on the current trial (Trial N) were repeated or switched from the preceding trial (Trial N – 1) and SOA (136 ms, 68 ms, 34 ms, 17 ms, 17 ms, 34 ms, 68 ms, 136 ms). Negative values indicate the probe on the color singleton placeholder (singleton probe) appeared first and positive SOAs indicate the probe on the nonsingleton placeholder Figure 2. Mean proportion of singleton probe first responses as (nonsingleton probe) appeared first. To avoid location a function of SOA between the two probes for the repeat and cuing, trials were not included if the location of the switch conditions, averaged over subjects. singleton repeated between trials (,1% of remaining trials). 4.588. One square was a color singleton and the other three appeared in a different color. The probes were black Os (0.388 diameter) in Courier font, centered in two of the placeholders. One probe appeared to the left Results of fixation and the other to the right, but both probes appeared above or below fixation. The mask display One subject’s data were not included due to overall consisted of two rows of three Xs (0.38830.488) where high accuracy and the inability to fit a psychometric each placeholder appeared. function to the data. Data were analyzed separately for the repeat and switch conditions and are presented in Figure 2, which depicts the proportion of the times the Procedures singleton probe was judged as appearing first as a function of SOA between the singleton probe and the Subjects were individually tested in a soundproof nonsingleton probe. To examine whether priming by the placeholder colors influenced TOJs, the PSE was room under normal illumination and were informed the estimated for the repeat and switch conditions for each study was on perception of order. Subjects were told subject. This was done by fitting the following two- that on each trial four squares would be presented as parameter logistic function to each subject’s data, placeholders for two black probes, but the squares which minimized the root mean square error (RMSE) would not help determine which probe appeared first. using Microsoft Excel’s Solver toolkit (Van der Burg et They were informed one probe would appear to the al., 2008; Theeuwes & Van der Burg, 2013): right and the other to the left and their task was to decide which probe appeared first. 1 Pðsingleton probe firstjSOAÞ¼ Each trial began with a fixation display for 300 ms 1 þ ebðSOAPSEÞ followed by a display containing the placeholders for SOA is the delay between the probes (136 ms, 68 300 ms. The color of the singleton and nonsingletons ms, 34 ms, 17 ms, 17 ms, 34 ms, 68 ms, 136 ms), and was chosen randomly on each trial, but the number of PSE and b (slope) were estimated. A difference in PSEs trials with a red singleton and a green singleton was between the switch and repeat conditions would equal. The first probe was presented in a randomly indicate a priming effect. Importantly, a larger positive chosen square for 17 ms, 34 ms, 68 ms, or 136 ms PSE in the switch condition would suggest the singleton before the second probe was presented on the opposite probe needed to be presented earlier in the switch side of fixation and on the same vertical level as the first condition than repeat condition for both probes to be probe. Both probes appeared together for 72 ms before perceived simultaneously. As can be seen in Figure 2, being masked until the subject responded. Subjects the psychometric function in the switch condition was pressed the ‘‘z’’ key for the left probe first and the ‘‘/’’ shifted to the right of the repeat condition. key for the right probe. Subjects completed a practice Separate one-sample t tests revealed the PSE in the block of 64 trials followed by eight blocks of 128 trials switch condition (M ¼ 23.31 ms, 95% CI ¼ [19.60, each. 31.86]) was significantly greater than 0 ms, t(8) ¼ 4.285,

Downloaded from iovs.arvojournals.org on 09/30/2021 Journal of Vision (2015) 15(14):8, 1–7 Burnham 5

SE ¼ 5.440, p ¼ 0.003 (two-tailed), d ¼ 1.428; whereas relevant. In contrast, in the present study the the PSE in the repeat condition, 9.08 ms [0.52, 17.63], placeholder colors were task-irrelevant so the repeated was not, t(8) ¼ 2.044, SE ¼ 4.440, p ¼ 0.075 (two-tailed), singleton color was irrelevant. Thus, the present study d ¼ 0.681. Importantly, a paired-sample t test revealed showed that repeating irrelevant features can produce the PSE in the switch condition was greater than in the a prior entry effect. repeat condition, t(8) ¼ 3.837, SE ¼ 11.127, p ¼ 0.005 This study is also somewhat similar to studies (two-tailed), d ¼ 0.955. The shift in PSEs between the showing that properties of backgrounds can influence repeat and switch condition indicates that repeating the attentional deployment. For example, West, Pratt, irrelevant placeholder colors primed the TOJs for the and Peterson (2013) presented asynchronous probes probes. on a background that consisted of a perceptually The slope in the repeat condition (b ¼0.020 convex area and a concave area. They observed a prior [0.024, 0.016]) and switch condition (b ¼0.019 entry effect for probes appearing on the convex area, [0.021, 0.015]) were not significantly different, t(8) ¼ suggesting was biased to select the percep- 0.678, SE ¼ 0.005, p ¼ 0.517 (two-tailed), d ¼ 0.084, but tually ‘‘nearer’’ area. Similarly, Lester, Hecht, and both slopes differed from 0 [repeat: t(8) ¼4.105, SE ¼ Vecera (2009) examined the influence of figure versus 0.005, p ¼ 0.003 (two-tailed), d ¼ 1.368; switch: t(8) ¼ ground on attention by presenting asynchronous 4.062, SE ¼ 0.005, p ¼ 0.004 (two-tailed), d ¼ 1.354]. probes on a background that consisted of a figure (an object) and ground (background). Lester et al. (2009) observed a prior entry effect for probes appearing on Discussion the figure, suggesting figures are perceptually priori- tized. The results of the present study are somewhat This study demonstrated that probes appearing on inconsistent with claims that active processing of an unprimed color singleton (switch condition) needed objects is necessary for intertrial priming (Fecteau, to be presented earlier than probes appearing on a 2007; Kristja´nsson et al., 2013). Kristja´nsson et al. primed color singleton (repeat condition) to be (2013) cued observers to respond to a search display perceived simultaneously with a probe appearing on a (actively view) or not (passively view), and observed nonsingleton. This suggests that repeating the place- priming only when the preceding display was actively holder colors between trials influenced perceptual processed. If active processing is a necessary require- prioritization of the placeholders on the following trial, ment for intertrial priming, priming by the place- leading to a prior entry effect for probes on the primed color singleton. Importantly, the repeated singleton holders should not have occurred in the present study, color was irrelevant, because it did not define the because they did not have to be searched and did not target, did not indicate where the first probe appeared, require a response. There are at least three reasons for and did not require a response. Previous studies showed the difference in results between the present study and that repetition of irrelevant features affected later, Kristja´nsson et al. (2013). First, observers in postperceptual processes (Huang et al., 2004; Huang & Kristja´nsson et al. (2013) may have suppressed the Pashler, 2005). Other studies showed that repeating the display objects in the passive viewing condition since relevant, target-defining features sped perceptual pro- they were told to ignore the display, which would not cesses (e.g., Becker, 2008a, 2008b; Bichot & Schall, have occurred in the present study as subjects were not 2002), and sped both perceptual processes and post- instructed to do anything with the placeholders. perceptual response processes (e.g., Lamy et al., 2010; Second, in the present study, active viewing of the Yashar & Lamy, 2011). The results of the present placeholders may have occurred, since they indicated study add to the literature by showing how repetition of where the probes would appear. Lastly, in the present irrelevant features can indeed facilitate perceptual study priming was assessed by a difference in PSEs processing. between the repeat and switch conditions, whereas The results of this study are similar to those of priming was assessed by a difference in RTs between Theeuwes and Van der Burg (2013), who observed the repeat and switch conditions in Kristja´nsson et al. that a centrally-located prime induced a prior entry (2013). It may be that TOJ tasks are more sensitive to effect for probes that matched the prime’s color. Both performance differences resulting from intertrial studies demonstrated that priming influenced percep- priming when displays are passively viewed. tual prioritization, but the results of the present study In short, the present study demonstrated that extend Theeuwes and Van der Burg (2013). In their repeating irrelevant visual features can influence study, the prime served as a go/no-go signal to perceptual processing and lead to a prior entry effect complete the TOJ task so the prime’s color was task- for probes appearing at a location coinciding with a relevant, which made the repeated color of one probe repeated color. Thus, intertrial priming by relevant

Downloaded from iovs.arvojournals.org on 09/30/2021 Journal of Vision (2015) 15(14):8, 1–7 Burnham 6

features as well as irrelevant features can speed Hillstrom, A. P. (2000). Repetition effects in visual perceptual processing and postperceptual processing. search. Perception & Psychophysics, 62, 800–817. Keywords: priming, popout search, temporal order Huang, L. Q., Holcombe, A. O., & Pashler, H. (2004). judgment, prior entry Repetition priming in visual search: Episodic retrieval, not feature priming. Memory & Cognition, 32, 12–20. Huang, L. Q., & Pashler, H. (2005). Expectation and Acknowledgments repetition effects in searching for featural singletons in very brief displays. Perception & Psychophysics, 67, 150–157. Commercial relationships: none. Kristja´nsson, A´ ., & Campana, G. (2010). Where Corresponding author: Bryan R. Burnham. perception meets memory: A review of repetition Email: [email protected]; attention. priming in visual search tasks. Attention, Perception [email protected]. & Psychophysics, 72(1), 5–18, doi:10.3758/APP.72. Address: Department of Psychology, University of 1.5. Scranton, Scranton, PA, USA. Kristja´nsson, A´ ., Saevarsson, S., & Driver, J. (2013). The boundary conditions of priming of visual search: From passive viewing through task-relevant References load. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 20, 514–521, doi:10.3758/ Becker, S. I. (2008a). The mechanism of priming: s13423-013-0375-6. Episodic retrieval or priming of pop-out? Acta Lamy, D., Carmel, T., Egeth, H., & Leber, A. (2006). Psychologica, 127, 324–339, doi:10.1016/j.actpsy. Effects of search mode and inter-trial priming on 2007.07.005. singleton search. Perception & Psychophysics, 68, Becker, S. I. (2008b). Can intertrial effects of features 919–932. and dimensions be explained by a single theory? Lamy, D., Yashar, A., & Ruderman, L. (2010). A dual- Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Per- stage account of inter-trial priming effects. Vision ception and Performance, 34, 1417–1440, doi:10. Research, 50, 1396–1401. 1037/a0011386. Lester, B. D., Hecht, L. N., & Vecera, S. P. (2009). Bichot, N. P., & Schall, J. D. (2002). Priming in Visual prior entry for foreground figures. Psycho- macaque frontal cortex during popout visual nomic Bulletin & Review, 16, 654–659, doi:10.3758/ search: Feature-based facilitation and location- PBR.16.4.654. based inhibition of return. Journal of Neuroscience, Maljkovic, V., & Nakayama, K. (1994). Priming of 22, 4675–4685. popout: I. Role of features. Memory & Cognition, Chun, M. M., & Jiang, Y. (1998). Contextual cueing: 22, 657–672. Implicit learning and memory of visual context Maljkovic, V., & Nakayama, K. (1996). Priming of guides spatial attention. , 36, popout: II. The role of position. Perception & 28–71. Psychophysics, 58, 977–991. Chun, M. M., & Nakayama, K. (2000). On the Maljkovic, V., & Nakayama, K. (2000). Priming of functional role of implicit for the popout: III. A short-term system adaptive deployment of attention across scenes. beneficial for rapid target selection. Visual Cogni- Visual Cognition, 7, 65–81. tion, 7, 571–595. E-Prime (Version 2.0.8.22) computer software. (2007). Meeter, M., & Olivers, C. N. L. (2006). Intertrial Pittsburgh, PA: Psychology Software Tools. repetition stemming from ambiguity: A new ac- Fecteau, J. H. (2007). Priming of pop-out depends count of priming in visual search. Visual Cognition, upon the current goals of observers. Journal of 13, 202–222. Vision, 7(6):1, 1–11, doi:10.1167/7.6.1. [PubMed] Mu¨ller, H. J., Heller, D., & Ziegler, J. (1995). Visual [Article] search for singleton feature targets within and Goolsby, B. A., & Suzuki, S. (2001). Understanding across feature dimensions. Perception & Psycho- priming of color-singleton search: Roles of atten- physics, 57, 1–17. tion at and retrieval. Perception & Neill, W. T. (1997). Episodic retrieval in negative Psychophysics, 63, 929–994. priming and repetition priming. Journal of Exper-

Downloaded from iovs.arvojournals.org on 09/30/2021 Journal of Vision (2015) 15(14):8, 1–7 Burnham 7

imental Psychology: Learning, Memory & Cogni- Titchener, E. B. (1908). Lectures on the elementary tion, 23, 1291–1305. psychology of feeling and attention. New York: Shore, D. I., & Spence, C. (2005). Prior entry. In L. Itti, Macmillan. G. Rees, & J. K. Tsotos (Eds.), Neurobiology of Van der Burg, E., Olivers, C., Bronkhorst, A., & attention (pp. 89–95). New York: Elsevier. Theeuwes, J. (2008). Audiovisual events capture Spence, C., & Parise, C. (2010). Prior-entry: A review. attention: Evidence from temporal order judge- Consciousness and Cognition, 19, 364–379. ments. Journal of Vision, 8(5):2, 1–10, doi:10.1167/ Theeuwes, J., & Van der Burg, E. (2013). Priming makes 8.5.2. [PubMed] [Article] a stimulus more salient. Journal of Vision, 13(3):21, West, G. L., Pratt, J., & Peterson, M. A. (2013). 1–11, doi:10.1167/13.3.21. [PubMed] [Article] Attention is biased to near surfaces. Psychonomic Thomson, D. R., & Milliken, B. (2011). A switch in Bulletin & Review, 20(6), 1213–1220, doi:10.3758/ task affects priming of pop-out: Evidence for the s13423-013-0455-7. role of episodes. Attention, Perception & Psycho- physics, 73, 318–333. Wolfe, J. M., Butcher, S. J., Lee, C., & Hyle, M. (2003). Changing your mind: On the contributions of top- Thomson, D. R., & Milliken, B. (2012). Perceptual down and bottom-up guidance in visual search for distinctiveness produces long-lasting priming of pop-out. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 19, 170– feature singletons. Journal of Experimental Psy- 176, doi:10.3758/s13423-011-0199-1. chology: Human Perception & Performance, 29, 483–502. Thomson, D. R., & Milliken, B. (2013). Contextual distinctiveness produces long-lasting priming of Yashar, A., & Lamy, D. (2011). Refining the dual-stage pop-out. Journal of Experimental Psychology: account of intertrial feature priming: Does motor Human Perception and Performance, 39, 202–215, response or response feature matter? Attention, doi:10.1037/a0028069. Perception and Psychophysics, 73(7), 2160–2167.

Downloaded from iovs.arvojournals.org on 09/30/2021