Skip to main content
Top
Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research 3/2013

01-05-2013 | Original Article

Search performance with discrete-cell stimulus arrays: filtered naturalistic images and probabilistic markers

Auteurs: Alan R. Pinkus, Miriam J. Poteet, Allan J. Pantle

Gepubliceerd in: Psychological Research | Uitgave 3/2013

Log in om toegang te krijgen
share
DELEN

Deel dit onderdeel of sectie (kopieer de link)

  • Optie A:
    Klik op de rechtermuisknop op de link en selecteer de optie “linkadres kopiëren”
  • Optie B:
    Deel de link per e-mail

Abstract

In order to partially fill the gap between search studies with artificial and naturalistic stimuli, experiments with segmented and spatially filtered images of real stimuli in the discrete cells of search arrays were conducted. RT × set size functions obtained with the spatially filtered arrays were compared with those obtained with geometric and other types of arrays. With the aid of Fourier analysis, components of target certainty/uncertainty, target-distractor similarity/dissimilarity, and distractor homogeneity/heterogeneity were evaluated for their effects on search performance and efficiency. The comparative effects of valid/invalid and ambiguous/unambiguous markers of search items were included in the experiments to probe the potential contributions of top-down and bottom-up control to search with naturalistic stimuli. Visual coding in the form of spatial frequency passbands and top-down preferences for distractor search were used to explain the results.
Voetnoten
1
The choice to randomly shuffle the distractor images was deliberate. As a first step in the use of naturalistic images, our goal in comparing geometric and naturalistic stimuli was to isolate local visual factors, uncontaminated by semantic, episodic or global visual information defined over the whole search array. Later experiments planned for the series include the investigation of global factors.
 
2
In describing the methods and results of our experiments, we use the term subset size to refer to (1) the number of filled cells in a search array with no markers and (2) the number of marked cells in a fully-filled array in conditions where markers are employed. We prefer the term subset size over set size because it helps avoid the problem of confusing marked set size with the actual size of the whole display. Readers accustomed to the use of the term set size can simply substitute the term set size for subset size without loss of meaning. In describing the work of others (Introduction and Discussion sections), we use the term set size to describe their results and ours.
 
3
The simple cost-benefit scheme is based upon only a few simple assumptions. (1) Search essentially proceeds on the basis of an item-by-item search through the distractor items until the target is found. (2) The order of preference for the search of a set of marked versus a set of unmarked items is established by the expected gain versus loss of the number of items requiring inspection for marked and unmarked items, respectively. (3) The gain/loss is simply a count of the increase/decrease of the average number of items searched relative to the number of average items searched with no markers (24.5 items). (4) The preferred set is assumed to be searched exhaustively before search for the non-preferred set commences. Two sample computations using the properties above are as follows. The expected gain on BMI trials given a preference for 8 marked items is: 24.5 − (½ × 8) = +20.5. The expected loss on BME trials given a preference for 8 marked items: 24.5 − (8 + ½ × 41) = −4. (5) Gains and losses of items scanned are scaled to represent adjusted search time.
 
Literatuur
go back to reference Alexander, R., & Zelinsky, G. (2011). Visual similarity effects in categorical search. Journal of Vision, 11(8), 1–15. Alexander, R., & Zelinsky, G. (2011). Visual similarity effects in categorical search. Journal of Vision, 11(8), 1–15.
go back to reference Bacon, W., & Egeth, H. (1997). Goal-directed guidance of attention: Evidence from conjunctive search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 948–961.PubMedCrossRef Bacon, W., & Egeth, H. (1997). Goal-directed guidance of attention: Evidence from conjunctive search. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 948–961.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Bravo, M., & Farid, H. (2008). A scale invariant measure of clutter. Journal of Vision, 8(1), 1–9. Bravo, M., & Farid, H. (2008). A scale invariant measure of clutter. Journal of Vision, 8(1), 1–9.
go back to reference Breitmeyer, B. (1984). Visual masking. New York: Oxford University Press. Breitmeyer, B. (1984). Visual masking. New York: Oxford University Press.
go back to reference Carmi, R., & Itti, L. (2006). The role of memory in guiding attention during natural vision. Journal of Vision, 6(9), 898–914.PubMedCrossRef Carmi, R., & Itti, L. (2006). The role of memory in guiding attention during natural vision. Journal of Vision, 6(9), 898–914.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Chen, X., & Zelinsky, G. (2006). Real-world visual search is dominated by top-down guidance. Vision Research, 46, 4118–4133.PubMedCrossRef Chen, X., & Zelinsky, G. (2006). Real-world visual search is dominated by top-down guidance. Vision Research, 46, 4118–4133.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Duncan, J., & Humphreys, G. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96(3), 433–458.PubMedCrossRef Duncan, J., & Humphreys, G. (1989). Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96(3), 433–458.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Einhauser, W., Rutishauser, U., & Koch, C. (2008). Task-demands can immediately reverse the effects of sensory-driven saliency in complex visual stimuli. Journal of Vision, 8(2), 1–19.CrossRef Einhauser, W., Rutishauser, U., & Koch, C. (2008). Task-demands can immediately reverse the effects of sensory-driven saliency in complex visual stimuli. Journal of Vision, 8(2), 1–19.CrossRef
go back to reference Folk, C., Remington, R., & Johnston, J. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1030–1044.PubMedCrossRef Folk, C., Remington, R., & Johnston, J. (1992). Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control settings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1030–1044.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Found, A., & Muller, H. (1996). Searching for unknown feature targets on more than one dimension: Investigating a “dimension-weighting” account. Perception & Psychophysics, 58(1), 88–101.CrossRef Found, A., & Muller, H. (1996). Searching for unknown feature targets on more than one dimension: Investigating a “dimension-weighting” account. Perception & Psychophysics, 58(1), 88–101.CrossRef
go back to reference Geyer, T., Muller, H., & Krummemacher, J. (2008). Expectancies modulate attentional capture by salient color singletons. Vision Research, 48, 1315–1326.PubMedCrossRef Geyer, T., Muller, H., & Krummemacher, J. (2008). Expectancies modulate attentional capture by salient color singletons. Vision Research, 48, 1315–1326.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Henderson, J., Chanceaux, M., & Smith, T. (2009). The influence of clutter on real-world scene search: Evidence from search efficiency and eye movements. Journal of Vision, 9(1), 1–8. Henderson, J., Chanceaux, M., & Smith, T. (2009). The influence of clutter on real-world scene search: Evidence from search efficiency and eye movements. Journal of Vision, 9(1), 1–8.
go back to reference Hwang, A., Higgins, E., & Pomplun, M. (2009). A model of top-down attentional control during visual search in complex scenes. Journal of Vision, 9(5), 1–18. Hwang, A., Higgins, E., & Pomplun, M. (2009). A model of top-down attentional control during visual search in complex scenes. Journal of Vision, 9(5), 1–18.
go back to reference Krummenacher, J., Muller, H., & Heller, D. (2002). Visual search for dimensionally redundant pop-out targets: Redundancy gains in compound tasks. Visual Cognition, 9(7), 801–837.CrossRef Krummenacher, J., Muller, H., & Heller, D. (2002). Visual search for dimensionally redundant pop-out targets: Redundancy gains in compound tasks. Visual Cognition, 9(7), 801–837.CrossRef
go back to reference Merigan, W., & Maunsell, H. (1993). How parallel are the primate visual pathways? Annual Review of Neuroscience, 16, 369–402.PubMedCrossRef Merigan, W., & Maunsell, H. (1993). How parallel are the primate visual pathways? Annual Review of Neuroscience, 16, 369–402.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Muller, H., Geyer, T., Zehetleitner, M., & Krummenacher, J. (2009). Attentional capture by salient color singleton distractors is modulated by top-down dimensional set. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1–16.PubMedCrossRef Muller, H., Geyer, T., Zehetleitner, M., & Krummenacher, J. (2009). Attentional capture by salient color singleton distractors is modulated by top-down dimensional set. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 35, 1–16.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Muller, H., Heller, D., & Ziegler, J. (1995). Visual search for singleton feature targets within and across feature dimensions. Perception & Psychophysics, 57(1), 1–17.CrossRef Muller, H., Heller, D., & Ziegler, J. (1995). Visual search for singleton feature targets within and across feature dimensions. Perception & Psychophysics, 57(1), 1–17.CrossRef
go back to reference Muller, H., Reimann, B., & Krummenacher, J. (2003). Visual search for singleton feature targets across dimensions: Stimulus and expectancy-driven effects in dimensional weighting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance, 29, 1021–1035. Muller, H., Reimann, B., & Krummenacher, J. (2003). Visual search for singleton feature targets across dimensions: Stimulus and expectancy-driven effects in dimensional weighting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance, 29, 1021–1035.
go back to reference Navalpakkam, V., & Itti, L. (2005). Modeling the influence of task on attention. Vision Research, 45, 205–231.PubMedCrossRef Navalpakkam, V., & Itti, L. (2005). Modeling the influence of task on attention. Vision Research, 45, 205–231.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Navalpakkam, V., & Itti, L. (2006). Top-down attention selection is fine grained. Journal of Vision, 6(11), 1180–1193.PubMedCrossRef Navalpakkam, V., & Itti, L. (2006). Top-down attention selection is fine grained. Journal of Vision, 6(11), 1180–1193.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Neider, M., & Zelinsky, G. (2006a). Scene context guides eye movements during visual search. Vision Research, 46, 614–621.PubMedCrossRef Neider, M., & Zelinsky, G. (2006a). Scene context guides eye movements during visual search. Vision Research, 46, 614–621.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Neider, M., & Zelinsky, G. (2006b). Searching for camouflaged targets: Effects of target-background similarity on visual search. Vision Research, 46, 2217–2235.PubMedCrossRef Neider, M., & Zelinsky, G. (2006b). Searching for camouflaged targets: Effects of target-background similarity on visual search. Vision Research, 46, 2217–2235.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Neider, M., & Zelinsky, G. (2008). Exploring set size effects in scenes: Identifying the objects of search. Visual Cognition, 16(1), 1–10.CrossRef Neider, M., & Zelinsky, G. (2008). Exploring set size effects in scenes: Identifying the objects of search. Visual Cognition, 16(1), 1–10.CrossRef
go back to reference Nothdurft, H. (2006). Salience and target selection in visual search. Visual Cognition, 14 (4/5/6/7/8), 514–542. Nothdurft, H. (2006). Salience and target selection in visual search. Visual Cognition, 14 (4/5/6/7/8), 514–542.
go back to reference Palmer, J. (1994). Set-size effects in visual search: The effect of attention is independent of the stimulus for simple tasks. Vision Research, 34, 1703–1721.PubMedCrossRef Palmer, J. (1994). Set-size effects in visual search: The effect of attention is independent of the stimulus for simple tasks. Vision Research, 34, 1703–1721.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Palmer, J. (1995). Attention in visual search: Distinguishing four causes of a set-size effect. Current directions in psychological science, 4, 118–123.CrossRef Palmer, J. (1995). Attention in visual search: Distinguishing four causes of a set-size effect. Current directions in psychological science, 4, 118–123.CrossRef
go back to reference Pashler, H. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge: MIT Press. Pashler, H. (1998). The psychology of attention. Cambridge: MIT Press.
go back to reference Pomplun, M. (2006). Saccadic selectivity in complex visual search displays. Vision Research, 46, 1886–1900.PubMedCrossRef Pomplun, M. (2006). Saccadic selectivity in complex visual search displays. Vision Research, 46, 1886–1900.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Rao, R., Zelinsky, G., Hayhoe, M., & Ballard, D. (2002). Eye movements in iconic visual search. Vision Research, 42, 1447–1463.PubMedCrossRef Rao, R., Zelinsky, G., Hayhoe, M., & Ballard, D. (2002). Eye movements in iconic visual search. Vision Research, 42, 1447–1463.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Rosenholtz, R., Li, Y., & Nakano, L. (2007). Measuring visual clutter. Journal of Vision, 7(2), 1–22. Rosenholtz, R., Li, Y., & Nakano, L. (2007). Measuring visual clutter. Journal of Vision, 7(2), 1–22.
go back to reference Snowden, R. (1998). Texture segregation and visual search: A comparison of the effects of random variations along irrelevant dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1354–1367.PubMedCrossRef Snowden, R. (1998). Texture segregation and visual search: A comparison of the effects of random variations along irrelevant dimensions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 24(5), 1354–1367.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Tavassoli, A., van der Linde, I., Bovik, A., & Cormack, L. (2009). Eye movements selective for spatial frequency and orientation during active visual search. Vision Research, 49, 173–181.PubMedCrossRef Tavassoli, A., van der Linde, I., Bovik, A., & Cormack, L. (2009). Eye movements selective for spatial frequency and orientation during active visual search. Vision Research, 49, 173–181.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Theeuwes, J. (2004). Top-down search strategies cannot override attentional capture. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 65–70.CrossRef Theeuwes, J. (2004). Top-down search strategies cannot override attentional capture. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 11, 65–70.CrossRef
go back to reference Tollner, T., Zehetleitner, M., Gramann, K., & Muller, H. (2010). Top-down weighting of visual dimensions: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Vision Research, 50, 1372–1381.PubMedCrossRef Tollner, T., Zehetleitner, M., Gramann, K., & Muller, H. (2010). Top-down weighting of visual dimensions: Behavioral and electrophysiological evidence. Vision Research, 50, 1372–1381.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Treisman, A. (1986). Features and objects in visual processing. Scientific American, 255(11), 114B–125B. Treisman, A. (1986). Features and objects in visual processing. Scientific American, 255(11), 114B–125B.
go back to reference Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136. Treisman, A., & Gelade, G. (1980). A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.
go back to reference Turner, M. (1986). Texture discrimination by Gabor functions. Biological Cybernetics, 55, 71–82.PubMed Turner, M. (1986). Texture discrimination by Gabor functions. Biological Cybernetics, 55, 71–82.PubMed
go back to reference Vickery, T., King, L., & Jiang, Y. (2005). Setting up the target template in visual search. Journal of Vision, 5, 81–92.PubMedCrossRef Vickery, T., King, L., & Jiang, Y. (2005). Setting up the target template in visual search. Journal of Vision, 5, 81–92.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Wandell, B. (1995). Foundations of vision. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Inc. Wandell, B. (1995). Foundations of vision. Sunderland: Sinauer Associates, Inc.
go back to reference Wolfe, J. (1994a). Visual search in continuous, naturalistic stimuli. Vision Research, 34, 1187–1195.PubMedCrossRef Wolfe, J. (1994a). Visual search in continuous, naturalistic stimuli. Vision Research, 34, 1187–1195.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Wolfe, J. (1994b). Guided search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 202–238.CrossRef Wolfe, J. (1994b). Guided search 2.0: A revised model of visual search. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 1, 202–238.CrossRef
go back to reference Wolfe, J. (2002). Segmentation of objects from backgrounds in visual search tasks. Vision Research, 42, 2985–3004.PubMedCrossRef Wolfe, J. (2002). Segmentation of objects from backgrounds in visual search tasks. Vision Research, 42, 2985–3004.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Wolfe, J., Alvarez, G., Rosenholtz, R., Kuzmova, Y., & Sherman, A. (2011). Visual search for arbitrary objects in real scenes. Attention, Percpetion, & Psychophysics, 73, 1650–1671.CrossRef Wolfe, J., Alvarez, G., Rosenholtz, R., Kuzmova, Y., & Sherman, A. (2011). Visual search for arbitrary objects in real scenes. Attention, Percpetion, & Psychophysics, 73, 1650–1671.CrossRef
go back to reference Wolfe, J., Friedman-Hill, S., Stewart, M., & O’Connell, K. (1992). The role of categorization in visual search for orientation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 34–49.PubMedCrossRef Wolfe, J., Friedman-Hill, S., Stewart, M., & O’Connell, K. (1992). The role of categorization in visual search for orientation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 34–49.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Wolfe, J., Oliva, A., Horowitz, T., Butcher, S., & Bompas, A. (2002). Segmentation of objects from backgrounds in visual search tasks. Vision Research, 42, 2985–3002. Wolfe, J., Oliva, A., Horowitz, T., Butcher, S., & Bompas, A. (2002). Segmentation of objects from backgrounds in visual search tasks. Vision Research, 42, 2985–3002.
go back to reference Zelinsky, G. (1999). Precuing target location in a variable set size “Nonsearch” task: Dissociating search-based and interference-based explanations of set size effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 875–903.CrossRef Zelinsky, G. (1999). Precuing target location in a variable set size “Nonsearch” task: Dissociating search-based and interference-based explanations of set size effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 25, 875–903.CrossRef
go back to reference Zelinsky, G. (2008). A theory of eye movements during target acquisition. Psychological Review, 115, 787–835.PubMedCrossRef Zelinsky, G. (2008). A theory of eye movements during target acquisition. Psychological Review, 115, 787–835.PubMedCrossRef
go back to reference Zohary, E., & Hochstein, S. (1989). How serial is serial processing in vision? Perception, 18, 191–200.PubMedCrossRef Zohary, E., & Hochstein, S. (1989). How serial is serial processing in vision? Perception, 18, 191–200.PubMedCrossRef
Metagegevens
Titel
Search performance with discrete-cell stimulus arrays: filtered naturalistic images and probabilistic markers
Auteurs
Alan R. Pinkus
Miriam J. Poteet
Allan J. Pantle
Publicatiedatum
01-05-2013
Uitgeverij
Springer-Verlag
Gepubliceerd in
Psychological Research / Uitgave 3/2013
Print ISSN: 0340-0727
Elektronisch ISSN: 1430-2772
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00426-012-0434-z

Andere artikelen Uitgave 3/2013

Psychological Research 3/2013 Naar de uitgave