Published online: 2 August 2013# Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2013Repetition breeds success. This is the case over the long run, when repeating a certain act leads to learning, but also in the very short one: Over and over again, it has been found that the action that was performed last is primed to be performed again. In the visual search literature, such repetition priming has been studied extensively. Participants tend to find a target more easily when they have to search for the same target as on the previous trial than when the target changes relative to the previous trial (Goolsby & Suzuki, 2001; Huang, Holcombe, & Pashler, 2004; Kristjansson, Wang, & Nakayama, 2002; Maljkovic & Nakayama, 1994, 2000; McPeek, Maljkovic, & Nakayama, 1999; Meeter & Olivers, 2006; Muller, Heller, & Ziegler, 1995).Priminginvisualsearchhasbeenfoundfordifferent target features: for the layout of the search scene, for its size, for the to-be given response, and for interactions between these factors (reviewed in Kristjansson & Campana, 2010). Of these factors, priming by a target feature is the most extensively investigated effect, often in the form of priming of pop-out (PoP; Maljkovic & Nakayama, 1994). When the unique target feature is repeated on the subsequent trial, the targetisfoundearlier,onaverage,thanwhenthetarget feature is changed. Many researchers have argued that prim- ing in visual search affects attentional selection, in that a repeated target is more likely to be selected early on in a trial than is a nonrepeated target (Becker, Ansorge, & Horstmann, 2009; Brascamp, Blake, & Kristjansson, 2011; Kristjansson & Campana 2010; Meeter & Olivers, 2006).However, placing the locus of priming at the stage of attentional selection does not answer all questions, as it remains unclear what is changed by a previous trial such that attentional selection is speeded. One possibility is that target repetition strengthens the signal that the target elicits in visual brain areas. This is commonly conceptualized as a target having increased activation in a salience map that determines which element in the scene is selected (Becker, 2008; Fecteau & Munoz, 2003; Lee, Mozer, & Vecera, 2009; Meeter & Olivers, 2006). Another possibility is that target signals do not so much become strengthened, but rather that distractor signals are suppressed. Several studies have shown that distractor repetition speeds search independent of target repetition (e.g., Kristjansson & Driver, 2008), suggesting that distractor feature suppression is at least a possible cause of PoP.A third possibility is that no change takes place in atten- tional selection, but that postselection processes are more efficient for a repeated feature. For example, Huang et al. (2004) argued that after a target is selected, observers engage in a checking process to ascertain that they have truly found the target. Huang et al. suggested that this process is speeded specifically through priming.Using reaction time measures, as is typically done in prim- ing studies, these possibilities cannot be disentangled from one another, since the measures reflect both pre- and postattentional processing and cannot dissociate the strength of the individual signals of target and distractor. To this end, we used a novel measure of the effect of a previous trial: the strength of the global effect. The global effect is the finding in eye movement research that when two elements in a visual scene are in relatively close proximity, a fast saccade to one of them generally lands in between the two, instead of on either one (Findlay, 1982; Van der Stigchel, de Vries, Bethlehem, & Theeuwes, 2011; Van der Stigchel & Nijboer, 2011). The global effect is sensitive to the strengths of the signals of the two elements. For example, a saccade will land closer to an element of greater size (Findlay, 1982), greater intensity (Deubel, Wolf, & Hauske, 1984), or greater dissimilarity to the background (Deubel, Findlay, Jacobs, & Brogan, 1988). …