On the nature of the stimulus information necessary for estimating mean size of visual arrays.

This paper explores the nature of the representations used for computing mean visual size of an array of visual objects of different sizes. In Experiment 1 we found that mean size judgments are accurately made even when the individual objects (circles) upon which those judgments were based were distributed between the two eyes. Mean size judgments were impaired, however, when a subset of the constituent objects involved in the estimation of mean size were rendered invisible by interocular suppression. These findings suggest that mean size is computed from relatively refined stimulus information represented at stages of visual processing beyond those involved in binocular combination and interocular suppression. In Experiment 2 we used an attentional blink paradigm to learn whether this refined information was susceptible to the constraints of attention. Accuracy of mean size judgments was unchanged when one of the two arrays of circles was presented within a rapid serial visual presentation sequence, regardless of task requirement (single vs. dual task) and the array's time of presentation relative to the brief appearance of a target that was the focus of attention. Evidently the refined stimulus information used for computing mean size remains available even in the absence of focused attention.

[1]  J. Lund,et al.  Compulsory averaging of crowded orientation signals in human vision , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[2]  J. Braun Vision and attention: the role of training , 1998, Nature.

[3]  R. Aslin,et al.  Statistical learning of higher-order temporal structure from visual shape sequences. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[4]  E. Vogel,et al.  Word meanings can be accessed but not reported during the attentional blink , 1996, Nature.

[5]  C. S. Green,et al.  Action video game modifies visual selective attention , 2003, Nature.

[6]  R. Blake,et al.  Neural bases of binocular rivalry , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[7]  I. Biederman,et al.  Subliminal visual priming , 1997, Neuroscience Letters.

[8]  D. Simons,et al.  Better than average: Alternatives to statistical summary representations for rapid judgments of average size , 2008, Perception & psychophysics.

[9]  M. Teghtsoonian THE JUDGMENT OF SIZE. , 1965, The American journal of psychology.

[10]  A. Treisman,et al.  Representation of statistical properties , 2003, Vision Research.

[11]  D G Pelli,et al.  The VideoToolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[12]  V. Lollo,et al.  Beyond the attentional blink: visual masking by object substitution. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[13]  M. Chun,et al.  Top-Down Attentional Guidance Based on Implicit Learning of Visual Covariation , 1999 .

[14]  A. Treisman,et al.  Attentional spread in the statistical processing of visual displays , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[15]  A. Treisman,et al.  Statistical processing: computing the average size in perceptual groups , 2005, Vision Research.

[16]  D. Ariely Seeing Sets: Representation by Statistical Properties , 2001, Psychological science.

[17]  E. Spelke,et al.  Language and Conceptual Development series Core systems of number , 2004 .

[18]  A. Oliva,et al.  The Representation of Simple Ensemble Visual Features Outside the Focus of Attention , 2008, Psychological science.

[19]  K L Shapiro,et al.  Temporary suppression of visual processing in an RSVP task: an attentional blink? . , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[20]  J. Driver,et al.  Priming from the Attentional Blink: A Failure to Extract Visual Tokens but Not Visual Types , 1997 .

[21]  D. Kahneman,et al.  When More Pain Is Preferred to Less: Adding a Better End , 1993 .

[22]  M. Tarr,et al.  Unraveling mechanisms for expert object recognition: bridging brain activity and behavior. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[23]  G. Poggio,et al.  Binocular interaction and depth sensitivity in striate and prestriate cortex of behaving rhesus monkey. , 1977, Journal of neurophysiology.

[24]  Robert Tibshirani,et al.  An Introduction to the Bootstrap , 1994 .

[25]  M. Potter,et al.  A two-stage model for multiple target detection in rapid serial visual presentation. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[27]  Hee Yeon Im,et al.  Computation of mean size is based on perceived size , 2009, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[28]  Adriana de Pesters,et al.  Psychophysical magic: rendering the "invisible" visible , 2009 .

[29]  Pierre Jolicoeur,et al.  Requirement for high-level processing in subliminal learning , 2005, Current Biology.

[30]  Ken Nakayama,et al.  Attentional requirements in a ‘preattentive’ feature search task , 1997, Nature.

[31]  D. Hubel,et al.  Receptive fields and functional architecture of monkey striate cortex , 1968, The Journal of physiology.

[32]  N. Kanwisher,et al.  Temporal Selection is Suppressed, Delayed, and Diffused During the Attentional Blink , 2008, Psychological science.

[33]  P. Atchley,et al.  Discrimination of speed distributions: Sensitivity to statistical properties , 1995, Vision Research.

[34]  M. Tarr,et al.  Training ‘greeble’ experts: a framework for studying expert object recognition processes , 1998, Vision Research.

[35]  A. Treisman How the deployment of attention determines what we see , 2006, Visual cognition.

[36]  D. Pelli,et al.  Crowding is unlike ordinary masking: distinguishing feature integration from detection. , 2004, Journal of vision.

[37]  R N Aslin,et al.  Statistical Learning by 8-Month-Old Infants , 1996, Science.

[38]  L. Beach,et al.  Man as an Intuitive Statistician , 2022 .