Duncan, J. and Humphreys, G. W. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review 96(3), 433–458. DOI 10.1037/0033-295X.96.3.433
Key takeaways
Not read: no lawful copy could be fetched (status note). Its abstract states the similarity account: search difficulty grows with target–nontarget similarity and falls with nontarget–nontarget similarity, along a continuum, with no sharp serial/parallel or feature/conjunction divide. Treisman and Gelade (LIT-1082, read) argue that conjunctions, not similarity, make search serial, so the record holds this disagreement having read only one side.
Why this is here
The owner’s LEGO parable (CASE-094): “if it’s a single black brick in a box of white bricks: ok, it’s buried but its’ still detectable.” CLAIM-310 uses the feature/conjunction distinction to say what an arrangement buys: sorting on one attribute leaves the wanted brick to be told from its binmates by one feature only.