The finding concerns memory judgment, not visual search

What it is

Memory-scanning law comes from memory judgment: items are briefly held, then a probe is judged present or absent. It is not visual search, which locates a target in a presently visible scene and depends on spatial layout, salience, eye movements, and occlusion.

Why it happens

Memory scanning compares a probe with an internally held discrete set. Visual search also requires perceptual encoding and attentional deployment; it can be almost set-size independent for feature pop-out or grow with serial attention. A memory-scan slope cannot therefore describe visual search.

Studying it

State whether the probe is judged after memorisation or found in a display array. Measure retention, memory-set size, search-set size, gaze, and target salience separately. When an interface task combines both, use separated conditions or a process model rather than assigning total reaction time to one law.

Where it stops holding

The two tasks can occur in sequence—remembering a command then finding it in a menu—but remain distinct stages. A visible list is not automatically a memory set. Semantic familiarity can also make retrieval resemble recognition rather than standard scanning.

Related

• Same group: B1.06.1 Judging membership in a memory set takes longer linearly as the set grows · B1.06.2 Scanning is exhaustive rather than self-terminating · B1.06.4 Reaction time rises by tens of milliseconds per remembered item · B1.06.5 Similar slopes for yes and no responses indicate exhaustive scanning · B1.06.6 The result concerns small short-term sets, not long-term retrieval · B1.06.7 Using the law to set an interface-option limit is a cross-paradigm error
• Nearby: B1.04 Hick-Hyman law · B1.07 Power law of practice
• Search terms: memory judgment · visual search · Sternberg paradigm