The Precedence of Global Features in the Perception of Map Symbols

This research was an investigation of how global processing of visual stimuli affect the speed and accuracy of map symbol perception in a search and locate task. It addresses the role of symbol structure in detection on maps, which is critical for prescribing how symbols should be designed and used. Symbols were scaled according to global and local features, and then detected as targets against a realistic map background. Globally and locally similar symbols were most distracting to each other as measured by response time, but not so for accuracy. The importance of local features for this type of task was the most critical finding.

[1]  Jeff Miller.  Global precedence in attention and decision. , 1981 .

[2]  D. Navon,et al.  Does global precedence really depend on visual angle? , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[3]  Global precedence: Information availability or use? Reply to Navon. , 1981 .

[4]  David E. Rumelhart,et al.  A multicomponent theory of the perception of briefly exposed visual displays , 1970 .

[5]  D. M. Green,et al.  On the prediction of confusion matrices from similarity judgments , 1979 .

[6]  S. C. Johnson.  Hierarchical clustering schemes , 1967, Psychometrika.

[7]  Maryanne Martin.  Local and global processing: The role of sparsity , 1979 .

[8]  M Wish,et al.  Concepts and Applications of Multidimensional Scaling , 1973 .

[9]  L C Boer,et al.  Global precedence as a postperceptual effect: An analysis of speed-accuracy tradeoff functions , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[10]  J. Kruskal.  Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis , 1964 .

[11]  J. Baird,et al.  Global precedence in visual pattern recognition , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  David Navon,et al.  The forest revisited: More on global precedence , 1981 .

[13]  C W Eriksen,et al.  Information processing in visual search: A continuous flow conception and experimental results , 1979, Perception & psychophysics.

[14]  B G Breitmeyer,et al.  Implications of sustained and transient channels for theories of visual pattern masking, saccadic suppression, and information processing. , 1976, Psychological review.

[15]  E Leeuwenberg,et al.  Grounding the figure. , 1981, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[16]  R E Dewar,et al.  The Semantic Differential as an Index of Traffic Sign Perception and Comprehension , 1977, Human factors.

[17]  R. A. Kinchla,et al.  Attending to different levels of structure in a visual image , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[18]  C W ERIKSEN,et al.  Object location in a complex perceptual field. , 1953, Journal of experimental psychology.

[19]  A. Treisman,et al.  A feature-integration theory of attention , 1980, Cognitive Psychology.

[20]  C W ERIKSEN,et al.  Location of objects in a visual display as a function of the number of dimensions on which the objects differ. , 1952, Journal of experimental psychology.

[21]  Richard C. Atkinson,et al.  Human Memory: A Proposed System and its Control Processes , 1968, Psychology of Learning and Motivation.

[22]  J R Bloomfield,et al.  Visual Search in Complex Fields: Size Differences between Target Disc and Surrounding Discs , 1972, Human factors.

[23]  F. Attneave.  Some informational aspects of visual perception. , 1954, Psychological review.

[24]  William K. Estes,et al.  Redundancy of noise elements and signals in visual detection of letters , 1974 .

[25]  Forrest W. Young.  Nonmetric multidimensional scaling: Recovery of metric information , 1970 .

[26]  C. Bundesen,et al.  Size scaling in visual pattern recognition. , 1978, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  G. Lockhead,et al.  Classifying related stimuli. , 1978 .

[28]  E. Gibson.  Principles of Perceptual Learning and Development , 1969 .

[29]  David Navon.  Do attention and decision follow perception Comment on Miller. , 1981 .

[30]  C. Eriksen.  Partitioning and saturation of visual displays and efficiency of visual search. , 1955 .

[31]  Ernst Mach,et al.  The Analysis of Sensations. , 1916 .

[32]  L M Ward,et al.  Determinants of attention to local and global features of visual forms. , 1982, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[33]  Elizabeth L Bjork,et al.  On the nature of input channels in visual processing. , 1977, Psychological review.

[34]  J. Elashoff,et al.  Multiple Regression in Behavioral Research. , 1975 .

[35]  J. Wolfe,et al.  The order of visual processing: “Top-down,” “bottom-up,” or “middle-out” , 1979, Perception & psychophysics.

[36]  D. Navon.  Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[37]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Structural factors in figure perception , 1979 .

[38]  Charles W. Eriksen,et al.  Target redundancy in visual search: Do repetitions of the target within thedisplay impair processing? , 1979 .

[39]  R. Haber,et al.  The psychology of visual perception , 1973 .

[40]  William K. Estes,et al.  Interactions of signal and background variables in visual processing , 1972 .

[41]  G R Grice,et al.  Forest before trees? It depends where you look , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.

[42]  N Weisstein,et al.  Sharp targets are detected better against a figure, and blurred targets are detected better against a background. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[43]  W. James.  The principles of psychology , 1983 .

[44]  Mary A. Peterson,et al.  Opposed-set measurement procedure: A quantitative analysis of the role of local cues and intention in form perception. , 1983 .