EFFECT OF CONJUNCTION AND ARRAY SIZE 1

The Effect of Conjunction and Array Size on Reaction Time

Melissa N. D’Angelo

Department of Psychology, James Madison University

PSYC 211: Psychological Research Methods

Dr. Michael Hall

February 16th, 2020

EFFECT OF CONJUNCTION AND ARRAY SIZE 2

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to see if limited stimuli conditions will still result in the same

findings as Treisman and Gelades study. Target combinations of colors and symbols are used to

determine if reaction time is affected by serial search and array size. Psychology 211 students

were told to complete this task as a course requirement. The first two trials sought to find the

effect of parallel search, and the last trial tested reaction time with a conjunction target. Feature

based-search functions such as color and shape, showed no significant differences in reaction

time. Conjunction-based targets had a larger effect, and took significantly longer to find than

color and shape. Results indicated in Figure 1 indicate an increasing trend in reaction time as

array size increases. Conjunction based search pulled all average means up in this trend. Serial

search, in accordance with more items causes an increase in reaction time. These findings

suggest that looking for conjunction is resource demanding while parallel is not. It requires more

attention for us to pick out objects that “blend-in” to a setting. Other evidence suggests attention

may not be responsible for this though, unlike the Feature-Integration Theory.
EFFECT OF CONJUNCTION AND ARRAY SIZE 3

The Effect of Conjunction and Array Size on Reaction Time

To test how visual attention operates, Michael Posner explored the use of cues (Posner,

1980). Participants were directed to select which side they see the object on. However, cues

would pop up in the opposite direction of where the target would be. He predicted each time cues

showed up on the wrong side, that response time would increase. His results indicated longer

reaction times when the cues were in different spots, compared to those on the same side (Posner,

1980). Therefore, once attention is focused on a particular area, it will take us longer to reattach

it and appeal it elsewhere.

Shortly after the release of Posner’s work, Treisman and Gelade did additional work on

visual and focused attention. Through prior knowledge and research, they developed the

feature-integration theory. Treisman and Gelade in 1980 said that the Feature-Integration Theory

hypothesized that attention is the glue that gives us the ability to recognize objects(1980). Serial

and Parallel search helped explain our limit for attention from the theory. Parallel search is

present in the preattentive stage of attention. It suggests that objects that are defined by a

distinguishable feature will take less of our focused attention to identify. Thus, it will require

minimal focused attention in the preattentive stage. On the other hand, a conjunction target, or a

target with multiple features together may require more time and attention to distinguish from

distractors. This is better known as serial search, or looking for multiple things. This level of

attention passes the ability to be recognized in the preattentive stage, thus requiring more time to

identify. When attention is overloaded, which was hypothesized to happen because of serial

search, illusory conjunctions would occur. This is when we instinctively combine features, and

believe it’s a target (Treisman, & Schmidt, 1982). It was hypothesized therefore that it would

take longer for individuals to process and correctly identify conjunction targets. Due to the fact
EFFECT OF CONJUNCTION AND ARRAY SIZE 4

that it would be harder to focus on a similar looking object to those in the array, they

hypothesized that attention would have to be refocused(as Posner found) and applied heavier to

locate these conjunction targets.

To test this theory on focused attention, as well as it’s aspects, they conducted nine total

experiments. One study in particular tested the pop-out effect, to see if participants could identify

a stimulus or target that is meant to stand-out from the rest in the array. These target stimuli

included color-based, shape-based and conjunction based targets. Two rounds of the experiment

focused on feature-based searches(color and shape). These targets were purposefully meant to

differentiate heavily from distractor symbols. However, in the final round they were asked to find

a conjunction target that didn’t “pop out” in an array. Treisman and Gelade’s findings suggest it

took participants significantly longer in the final round to locate conjunction targets in arrays.

They also found that the time taken to respond increased as the number of items in the array

increased. Parallel or feature-based search deemed to take less time for participants to complete

compared to serial search. From this experiment, they had concluded that attention was the

reason that serial processing took longer to induce than parallel. Additional research done by

Treisman and Schmidt brought about the idea of illusory conjunctions in 1982. Assuming that

conjunction-based search was deemed serial processing, the thought of attention having to focus

more on other aspects caused illusory conjunctions(Treisman, & Schmidt, 1982). Therefore, this

made it harder to quickly and correctly identify a target.

This experiment is a partial replication of Treisman and Gelade. The purpose of this study

is to determine if reaction time will increase with conjunction and array size with limited

conditions. A smaller range of colors, and number of arrays will be used to determine if the

results from Treisman and Gelad’s hypothesized theory of feature integration will apply. It is
EFFECT OF CONJUNCTION AND ARRAY SIZE 5

expected that feature-based targets, or targets with distinct features will take less time to identify

compared to conjunction-based search. The number of items in an array are also expected to

increase reaction time.

Method

Participants

Convenience sampling was used to gather participants for this study. The participant pool

included 37 undergraduate students from James Madison University, in Psychology Research

Methods 211. The task was completed by the students as a course requirement, thus there was

low motivation for performance. Students must have had normal or corrected vision in order to

participate.

Stimuli

Randomized arrays of symbols, generated by the computer software were used. The

number of symbols present within each image included 1, 5, 15 and 30. The arrays consisted of

sometimes the target conjunction, and distractors. Stimuli used were the symbols N, X, and O, in

colors green brown and blue. Conditions of the targets included feature-based search, which

focused on finding a specific color or shape. Targets in feature-based search included (in order of

use in the experiment), a blue letter, a green or brown “O” and a green “N”. Testing serial search,

the other condition was Conjunction-based search. This focused on finding objects similar to

distractors. The target used in conjunction-based search was a green “N”. Distractors in these

arrays were the Green X’s and N’s, designed to distract participants from the target combination.

Not all the arrays included a target image, or distractors. An asterisk symbol also popped up in

the center of each array for the first second that the image popped up. There were a total of 72

total arrays, with 24 arrays in each block.

EFFECT OF CONJUNCTION AND ARRAY SIZE 6

Procedure

All students participating were over the age of 18, thus did not need consent from parents

or legal guardians. A within-subjects design was used to conduct this experiment, where all

participants were exposed to all conditions. Lab computers provided by the university allowed

students access to the software needed to complete the task given to them. This program is

specially designed to collect reaction times during the activity created. Participants were given

instructions to use the software on their computers to access the task. Once achieved, a set of

instructions popped up on the screen. The participants were made aware of the task they would

be enduring through this set of instructions. Participants were informed that the experiment

would take less than 20 minutes, consisting of 3 blocks with 24 trials each.

Similar to Treisman and Gelade, two of the blocks tested for parallel feature search, and

the last tested serial search.. In the first round, participants were asked to identify a blue letter

amongst the array. When testing the shape condition in the second round, participants were asked

to find a brown or green letter “O”. The last round tested the conjunction of color and shape,

asking participants to find a green N. By using the green N, participants should struggle to

differentiate this target from the distractor symbols in the array, increasing response time. It was

asked of them to find a specific conjunction target amongst each array. If the target was in that

array, they were asked to click the “Y” key on their keyboard. If they did not see the target

indicated, they were asked to press the “N” key. They were also informed that before every trail,

an asterisk would be seen in the center of the computer screen. Participants were shown the

arrays in a random order and each image was only shown once. Each participant took about

10-15 minutes in total, taking 3-4 minutes for each block. This experiment was self-paced, but

participants were encouraged to answer as quickly as possibly to ensure accuracy of the data.
EFFECT OF CONJUNCTION AND ARRAY SIZE 7

Results

Reaction time rates in accordance to array size and condition are located on Figure 1.

Reported analysis was only based on valid trials. Mean response times for each condition suggest

that conjunction-search was on average slower than feature-based search conditions. There also

seemed to be an increasing trend in mean response time as the number of items increased.

Multiple statistical analyses such as 3x4 repeated measures analysis of variance, Bonferroni

Pairwise comparisons, and Greenhouse Geisser corrections were calculated. A 3x4 repeated

measures analysis of variance between conditions, (Color shape and conjunction) and array size

(1, 5, 15, 30), was used to find if there was a difference between groups. The Bonferroni Test or

Pairwise comparisons were then used to find which variable included that significant difference.

Anywhere where we violated assumptions of sphericity, greenhouse geiser was used to correct it.

Mean response times seemed to be overwhelmingly greater for conjunction-based search.

Color-valid and Shape-valid showed similar as well as shorter average response time regardless

of array size. The condition effect showed F(1.650, 59.411)=55.759 with a p value less than

0.001. There was also a large effect of .608 somewhere in conditions. Pairwise comparisons

found that these significant differences and effects lied under the conjunction condition. The test

shows there to be a p value less than .001 for conjunction search. Meanwhile, color and shape

conditions showed no significant difference among groups, with a p value of .967. A p value that

large suggests no effect of color and shape on response time. This shows that the only condition

that had a large enough effect for a difference of response time was conjunction.

As the number of items in the array increased, there was a tendency for response time on

average to increase. Looking at figure 1, conjunction search seems to increase overall response

times for each item size. Regardless of condition, there were slight increases based on the
EFFECT OF CONJUNCTION AND ARRAY SIZE 8

number of items in the array. Significant differences were found somewhere with a p value of

0.001 and F(2.191, 78.880)=33.997. There seemed to be an effect of .486. Pairwise comparisons

showed 1 array item to be faster than 5, which was faster than 15 and 30 items. The last two

showed no difference, however they were greater than the smaller array sizes. It was found that

at 15 and 30, there was an equivalent p value of 0.41, therefore it was not statistically reliable.

However, the main difference was found to be between 1, 5, and 15 items since there was a

significant p value of 0.002.

Conditions and items also were confirmed to have an effect on reaction time together.

Effects of the array size depends on which search condition we are looking at. Feature-based

search conditions with small array sizes tended to reflect smaller reaction times, regardless of

search condition. However, Conjunction-based with larger array sizes reflected slower response

times. The interaction effect reflected an F statistic of (2.856, 102.8) =21.028, and a p value

below 0.001. There was significant difference somewhere, as well as an effect of 0.369. In

pairwise comparisons, the p value for array size for conjunctions was less than or equal to .041.

Therefore, showing that there is a significant interaction for array size with conjunction .

Discussion

The findings from this study confirm our hypothesis stating that reaction time showed to

increase with conjunction and array size. Even with limited conditions compared to the Treisman

and Gelade experiment, the results remained the same. In fact, this study could be seen as even

more significant. When looking at Feature-Based Search, Treisman and Gelade’s conditions of

array size had a small effect size, while this experiment had minimal to none. The effect of array

size was much more drastic compared to thiers. Results can contribute to the idea that it requires

more attention to differentiate similar objects, compared to objects that “pop-out”. Shape and
EFFECT OF CONJUNCTION AND ARRAY SIZE 9

color can be identified at a quick glance. However, attention needs to reach outside of the

preattentive stage in order to quickly identify detail.

Though our research was consistent with Treisman and Gelade’s hypothesis, it refutes

their Feature-Integration Theory. It was believed that attention is responsible for binding these

features together to recognize objects, which in turn results in making illusory conjunctions

(Treisman, A. & Schmidt, 1982). Additional research done by Townshend implies that it is likely

that conjunction-search may not even be considered serial. Though conjunction-search shows a

positive linear relationship, it may still be considered parallel(Townshend, 1990). He believes

that sensory overload from the amount of arrays may be what’s slowing down response time,

instead of the item you are searching for (Townshend, 1990). Conjunction search is very resource

demanding, therefore it’s hard to tell if attention causes the inability to properly recognize

targets. When you have lots of arrays, you are more likely to get overloaded and get more wrong,

but we don't know if that is due to attention or serial processing. We can’t assume one search is

parallel, and that the other is serial(Townshend, 1990). Donk also questioned the existence of

illusory conjunctions. She gathered data that suggested that people may become confused on

what their target is when searching in an array with similar symbols. Therefore, the

misconception of targets causes the belief that a target is present instead of illusory conjunctions.

When there's also a large array size, participants may feel overwhelmed or in a time

crunch(Ashby et.al,1996). This anxiousness may cause them to guess instead of truly looking for

a target (Ashby et.al,1996). This too diminishes the idea of illusory conjunctions.

The research conducted could have some possible limitations. Before the start of the task,

participants were not asked if they wore any type of eyewear for corrected vision. It is possible

that some who participated did not have the vision correction they needed. These possibilities
EFFECT OF CONJUNCTION AND ARRAY SIZE 10

could have inevitably skewed the results. However, the probability that some participants who

performed this task did not have the proper eyewear is very unlikely, due to the severity of our

results. The effect of array size and conjunction was extremely large, and there was a whopping

difference between parallel and serial search. Another possible limitation could be that the colors

used little of a difference in pigment. Therefore, it would be harder for individuals to recognize

differences in targets faster. The harder it is to find a difference, the more likely participants will

take longer to respond. This may cause some bias since it suggests increased reaction time. Since

there was a huge difference between conditions though, it is unlikely that the use of colors closer

in pigment would have drastically changed the effect. It is additionally unaccurate to assume that

parallel is feature-based search, and serial is conjunction search. As depicted, it is unknown how

to prove if something is serially based processing. Just because there was a large effect, does not

mean that conjunction base search is a parallel feautre.

For future replications of this experiment, participants should be asked if they have

corrected vision before they begin the task. Participants should also be asked if they have any

color blindness. Even if it seemed to not matter much in this experiment, it is likely to invalidate

results of another replication. If they do not have the correct materials needed for them to see

properly, they should be asked to wear them. Anyone with colorblindness should be advised not

to participate. They may not be able to correctly identify certain colors, invalidating results.

Colors that are less close in pigment to other colors can also be used. This may help participants

find target conjunctions easier, resulting in more accurate results. Along those lines, replicators

can use different variations of colors and symbols. Varying the stimuli will further validate the

findings from this experiment across multiple different colors and shapes. The more research

confirming this hypothesis with multiple variations of stimuli, the more applicable to a real
EFFECT OF CONJUNCTION AND ARRAY SIZE 11

world setting. Other stimuli such as animals, foods, etc can also be used instead of letters. Doing

so will give us a basic building block of visual objects.

EFFECT OF CONJUNCTION AND ARRAY SIZE 12

References

Ashby, F. G., Prinzmetal, W., Ivry, R., & Maddox, T. (1996). A formal theory of feature
binding in object perception. Psychological Review, 103, 165-192.

Posner, M. I. (1980). Orienting of attention.The Quarterly Journal of Experimental

Psychology, 32(1), 3-25.

Townshend, J. T. (1990). Serial vs. parallel processing: Sometimes they look like
Tweedledum and Tweedledee but they can (and should) be distinguished. Psychological
Science, 1(1), 46-54

Treisman, A. & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature integration theory of attention.

Cognitive Psychology,(12) ,97- 136.

Treisman, A. & Schmidt, H. (1982). Illusory conjunctions in the perception of objects.

Cognitive Psychology, 14, 107-141.
EFFECT OF CONJUNCTION AND ARRAY SIZE 13

Tables and Figures

Figure 1:

Mean Search Times and Standard Errors as a Function of Array Size and Search Condition.