nucleation

LIT-1082: A feature-integration theory of attention

1 min read

Properties4
StatusActive — read in full 2026-10-15 from a scan of the typeset article (Cognitive Psychology 12(1), pp. 97–136) hosted on a Princeton course page, COS 598B spring 2008 readings (www.cs.princeton.edu/courses/archive/spring08/cos598B/Readings/TreismanGelade1980.pdf); Unpaywall and OpenAlex (W2149095485) both report it closed, with no open-access location, so this is a course copy. Worth reading as the source of the feature/conjunction distinction in visual search: a target that alone has one colour or one distinctive shape part is found in time almost independent of display size (3.8 and 2.5 ms/item up to 30 items), while a target identified only by a combination of features its neighbours share is found by a serial self-terminating scan (28.7 ms/item present, 67.1 absent), which 13 sessions of practice did not change. For CLAIM-310 and CASE-095 it supports "search by what stands out" when what stands out is a single feature value no binmate shares, but it narrows them: in this paper serial search comes from conjunctions, not similarity; similarity on one dimension made search slow but not item-serial (ellipses of different sizes), and whether a shape pops out depends on which shape feature differs; it never tested ten-way colour search, similar colours, or piles of hundreds. The similarity effect the cases cite is not its finding. For CASE-094 a lone black brick among white ones is its easiest case, found almost regardless of numbers. For the claim on absence under a deadline it shows that rejecting absence costs about twice the per-item time of finding a present target in serial search, and costs a scan even when the present target pops out (25.1 vs 3.1 ms/item), with misses rising at large displays; it imposes no deadline.
Tagscognition
Cited as “paper” byNOTE-897 — Treisman & Gelade — A feature-integration theory of attention
Cited as “source” byTHEORY-358 — In visual search among up to about 36 well-spaced items, a target that alone carries one colour or one distinctive shape part is found in time almost independent of the number of items, while a target identified only by a combination of features its neighbours carry separately takes time that grows linearly with the number of items, about twice as fast when the target is absent, the pattern of a serial self-terminating scan, and practice did not remove it; that conjunctions rather than similarity cause it is the paper's reading, not its result

Graph View

Treisman, A. M. and Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology 12(1), 97–136. DOI 10.1016/0010-0285(80)90005-5

Key takeaways

Read in full (NOTE-897). A target that alone has one feature, a colour or a distinctive shape part, is found in time almost independent of display size (3.1 ms/item on average, up to 30 items). A target identified only by a combination of features its neighbours carry separately is found by a serial self-terminating scan (28.7 ms/item when present, 67.1 when absent), and practice did not change this. In this paper serial search comes from conjunctions, not from similarity. Similarity on one dimension made search slow but not item-by-item. Confirming absence cost a scan even when a present target popped out (25.1 against 3.1 ms/item).

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.

Backlinks