Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Collaboration during visual search.

Kelly A Malcolmson1, Michael G Reynolds, Daniel Smilek

  • 1Department of Psychology, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. ka2malco@watarts.uwaterloo.ca

Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
|November 2, 2007
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Inattention over time-on-task: the role of motivation in mitigating temporal increases in media multitasking.

Frontiers in cognition·2026
Same author

Author Correction: Attention in hindsight: Using stimulated recall to capture dynamic fluctuations in attentional engagement.

Behavior research methods·2026
Same author

Evidence of allocentric spatial learning in male rats with large lesions of the hippocampus.

PloS one·2026
Same author

The Effects of Anticipating Metacognitive Judgments about Mind-Wandering.

Attention, perception & psychophysics·2026
Same author

The effects of cannabis on mind-wandering.

Heliyon·2026
Same author

Agentic aspects of attentional disengagement.

Canadian journal of experimental psychology = Revue canadienne de psychologie experimentale·2025
Same journal

Mind wandering during first- and foreign-language reading.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Lexical word processing is unaffected by rapid invisible frequency tagging in reading: Evidence from eye movements.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Anxiety modulates voluntary attentional orienting to emotional gaze cues: Eye movements for pro- and anti-saccades.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Faster key-press responses to front vowels than back vowels when matching heard vowels with represented vowels.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

Testing the interleaving effect without response bias: A forced-choice reevaluation of Kornell and Bjork (2008).

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
Same journal

The impact of social interaction on abstract concepts.

Psychonomic bulletin & review·2026
See all related articles

Collaborative pairs showed improved visual search sensitivity but a more conservative response bias compared to individuals working alone. This suggests collaboration impacts search accuracy and decision-making.

Area of Science:

  • Cognitive Psychology
  • Human-Computer Interaction
  • Social Psychology

Background:

  • Visual search performance is crucial for tasks ranging from driving to medical diagnosis.
  • Understanding how collaboration affects cognitive processes like visual search is essential for optimizing group performance.
  • Previous research has yielded mixed results on the benefits of collaboration in perceptual tasks.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To investigate the impact of collaboration on visual search performance.
  • To compare the accuracy and response bias of collaborative pairs versus aggregated individual performance (nominal pairs).
  • To explore the underlying mechanisms, such as sensitivity and bias, affected by working together.

Main Methods:

  • Two experiments were conducted using briefly presented visual search displays.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Participants reported target presence or absence, either working in collaborative pairs or individually (forming nominal pairs when responses were pooled).
  • Signal detection analyses were employed to quantify sensitivity and response bias.

    • Main Results:

    • Collaborative pairs exhibited lower target detection rates and fewer false alarms compared to nominal pairs.
    • Signal detection analysis indicated higher sensitivity to the target in collaborative pairs.
    • Collaborative pairs demonstrated a more conservative response bias than nominal pairs, even when controlling for social presence.

    Conclusions:

    • Collaboration can enhance visual search sensitivity but may lead to more conservative decision-making.
    • The findings suggest that task-sharing dynamics, rather than mere social presence, influence collaborative visual search.
    • Further research is needed to fully understand the interplay of social loafing and task-sharing in collaborative cognition.