Effect of Visual Field Constriction on Visual Search in Orderly Array and Random Array Cancellation Tasks

Ryotaro Saito^1,2*, Yoshifumi Ikeda³, Hideyuki Okuzumi¹, Iwao Kobayashi¹, Mitsuru Kokubun¹

¹Tokyo Gakugei University, Koganei, Japan.
²Japan Society for the Promotion of Science, Tokyo, Japan.
³Joetsu University of Education, Joetsu, Japan.

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2015.614184                

Abstract

The cancellation task is a visual search task requiring rapid and accurate placement of a mark through each occurrence of a specific target displayed in an array of distractors on a sheet of paper. This study of 30 university students was conducted to examine the effects of visual field constriction on visual search in the cancellation task. Participants administered the orderly array cancellation task and the random array cancellation task while their visual fields were unrestricted (full vision), or restricted to 5°, 10°, or 15° by tunnel vision simulation goggles. The number of errors, time to completion, and the performance score as an index of cancelling efficiency were calculated. Results showed that the time to completion and the performance score were significantly greater in the random array cancellation task than in the structured array cancellation task, and in the narrowest visual field condition (5°) than in other visual field conditions (10°, 15°, and full vision). These results suggest that the visual search efficiency was degraded when the visual field was restricted to be less than 5° in the orderly and random array cancellation tasks used for this study.

Keywords

Visual Scan, Visual Field, Tunnel Vision, Visual Angle, Planning

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Brucki, S. M. D., & Nitrini, R. (2008). Cancellation Task in Very Low Educated People. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 23, 139-147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.acn.2007.11.003
[2]	Carpenter, R. H. S. (1991). The Visual Origins of Ocular motility. Vision and Visual Function, 8, 1-10.
[3]	Chatterjee, A., Mennemeier, M., & Heilman, K. M. (1992). A Stimulus-Response Relationship in Unilateral Neglect: The Power Function. Neuropsychologia, 30, 1101-1108. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0028-3932(92)90101-Q
[4]	Cornelissen, F. W., Bruin, K. J., & Kooijman, A. C. (2005). The Influence of Artificial Scotomas on Eye Movements during Visual Search. Optometry & Vision Science, 82, 27-35.
[5]	Geldmacher, D. S. (1996). Effects of Stimulus Number and Target-to-Distractor Ratio on the Performance of Random Array Letter Cancellation Tasks. Brain and Cognition, 32, 405-415. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/brcg.1996.0073
[6]	Geldmacher, D. S. (1998). Stimulus Characteristics Determine Processing Approach on Random Array Letter-Cancellation Tasks. Brain and Cognition, 36, 346-354. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/brcg.1997.0978
[7]	Huang, H.-C., & Wang, T.-Y. (2008). Visualized Representation of Visual Search Patterns for a Visuospatial Attention Test. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 383-390. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.2.383
[8]	Huang, H.-C., & Wang, T.-Y. (2009). Stimulus Effects on Cancellation Task Performance in Children with and without Dyslexia. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 539-545. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.2.539
[9]	Jones, K. E., Craver-Lemley, C., & Barrett, A. M. (2008). Asymmetrical Visual-Spatial Attention in College Students Diagnosed with ADD/ADHD. Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, 21, 176-178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/WNN.0b013e318185e6a9
[10]	Kaplan, R. F., Verfaellie, M., Meadows, M. E., Caplan, L. R., Pessin, M. S., & Dewitt, L.D. (1991). Changing Attentional Demands in Left Hemispatial Neglect. Archives of Neurology, 48, 1263-1266. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archneur.1991.00530240067023
[11]	Nakajima, Y., Ikeda, Y., & Okuzumi, H. (2013). Target-to-Distractor Ratio Effects on Detection Time in the Orderly Array Shape Cancellation Task. Psychological Reports, 113, 353-361. http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/15.03.PR0.113x24z2
[12]	Sandson, T. A., Bachna, K. J., & Morin, M. D. (2000). Right Hemisphere Dysfunction in ADHD Visual Hemispatial Inattention and Clinical Subtype. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 83-90. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/002221940003300111
[13]	Wang, T. Y., & Huang, H. C. (2012). The Performance on a Computerized Attention Assessment System between Children with and without Learning Disabilities. Procedia—Social and Behavioral Sciences, 64, 202-208. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2012.11.024
[14]	Weintraub, S., & Mesulam, M. M. (1988). Visual Hemispatial Inattention: Stimulus Parameters and Exploratory Strategies. Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery, & Psychiatry, 51, 1481-1488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jnnp.51.12.1481