Five dichotomies in the psychophysics of ensemble perception

Whereas psychophysicists may formulate hypotheses about appearance, they can only measure performance. Bias and imprecision in psychophysical data need not necessarily reflect bias and imprecision in perception. Sensory systems may exaggerate the differences between each item and its neighbors in an ensemble. Alternatively, sensory systems may homogenize the ensemble, thereby removing any apparent differences between neighboring items. Ensemble perception may be involuntary when observers attempt to report the identities of individual items. Conversely, when asked to make a (voluntary) decision about the ensemble as a whole, observers may find it very difficult to compute statistics that are based on more than a very small number of individual items. Modeling decisions about prothetic continua, such as size and contrast, can be tricky because sensory signals may be distorted before and/or after voluntarily computing ensemble statistics. With metathetic continua, such as spatial orientation, distortion is less problematic; physically vertical things necessarily appear close to vertical and physically horizontal things necessarily appear close to horizontal. Decision processes are corrupted by noise that, like distortion, may be added to sensory signals prior to and/or after voluntarily computing ensemble statistics.

[1]  M. Morgan,et al.  Linking hypotheses underlying Class A and Class B methods , 2013, Visual Neuroscience.

[2]  A. Gorea,et al.  Summary statistics for size over space and time. , 2014, Journal of vision.

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

[4]  R. Addams LI. An account of a peculiar optical phænomenon seen after having looked at a moving body , 1834 .

[5]  Timothy F. Brady,et al.  Hierarchical Encoding in Visual Working Memory , 2010, Psychological science.

[6]  Peter Wenderoth,et al.  The effects of exposure duration and surrounding frames on direct and indirect tilt aftereffects and illusions , 1989, Perception & psychophysics.

[7]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Attentional resolution and the locus of visual awareness , 1996, Nature.

[8]  Stefano Tamburin,et al.  Psychological Considerations in the Assessment and Treatment of Pain in Neurorehabilitation and Psychological Factors Predictive of Therapeutic Response: Evidence and Recommendations from the Italian Consensus Conference on Pain in Neurorehabilitation , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[9]  Matjaž Jogan,et al.  A new two-alternative forced choice method for the unbiased characterization of perceptual bias and discriminability. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[10]  H. BOUMA,et al.  Interaction Effects in Parafoveal Letter Recognition , 1970, Nature.

[11]  Joshua A. Solomon,et al.  Attention and the motion aftereffect , 2019, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.

[12]  P. Dayan,et al.  journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/visres Selective Bayes: Attentional load and crowding , 2022 .

[13]  J. Allik,et al.  Perception of means, sums, and areas , 2020, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[14]  Christopher Summerfield,et al.  Robust averaging protects decisions from noise in neural computations , 2017, bioRxiv.

[15]  M. Morgan,et al.  Low-level mediation of directionally specific motion aftereffects: Motion perception is not necessary , 2016, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[16]  D. Carmel,et al.  Spatial Attention Can Modulate Unconscious Orientation Processing , 2008, Perception.

[17]  Sheng He,et al.  Orientation-selective adaptation and tilt after-effect from invisible patterns , 2001, Nature.

[18]  S. Dakin Information limit on the spatial integration of local orientation signals. , 2001, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics, image science, and vision.

[19]  Isabelle Mareschal,et al.  Cortical distance determines whether flankers cause crowding or the tilt illusion. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[20]  Isabelle Mareschal,et al.  A tilt after-effect for images of buildings: evidence of selectivity for the orientation of everyday scenes , 2016, Royal Society Open Science.

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

[22]  Joshua A Solomon,et al.  Visual discrimination of orientation statistics in crowded and uncrowded arrays. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[23]  Calculation Efficiencies for Mean Numerosity , 2018, Psychological science.

[24]  Donald B. Rubin,et al.  Interpersonal expectancy effects: the first 345 studies , 1978, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[25]  Joshua A. Solomon,et al.  Tilted frames of reference have similar effects on the perception of gravitational vertical and the planning of vertical saccadic eye movements , 2015, Experimental Brain Research.

[26]  S. S. Stevens On the psychophysical law. , 1957, Psychological review.

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

[28]  Derek H. Arnold,et al.  A Roving Dual-Presentation Simultaneity-Judgment Task to Estimate the Point of Subjective Simultaneity , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[29]  P. Cavanagh Seeing the forest but not the trees , 2001, Nature Neuroscience.

[30]  Laurence T Maloney,et al.  Maximum likelihood difference scaling. , 2003, Journal of vision.

[31]  Joshua A. Solomon,et al.  A Brücke–Bartley effect for contrast , 2018, Royal Society Open Science.

[32]  D. Whitney,et al.  Ensemble Perception , 2018, Annual review of psychology.