Set size manipulations reveal the boundary conditions of perceptual ensemble learning

&NA; Recent evidence suggests that observers can grasp patterns of feature variations in the environment with surprising efficiency. During visual search tasks where all distractors are randomly drawn from a certain distribution rather than all being homogeneous, observers are capable of learning highly complex statistical properties of distractor sets. After only a few trials (learning phase), the statistical properties of distributions ‐ mean, variance and crucially, shape ‐ can be learned, and these representations affect search during a subsequent test phase (Chetverikov, Campana, & Kristjánsson, 2016). To assess the limits of such distribution learning, we varied the information available to observers about the underlying distractor distributions by manipulating set size during the learning phase in two experiments. We found that robust distribution learning only occurred for large set sizes. We also used set size to assess whether the learning of distribution properties makes search more efficient. The results reveal how a certain minimum of information is required for learning to occur, thereby delineating the boundary conditions of learning of statistical variation in the environment. However, the benefits of distribution learning for search efficiency remain unclear.

[1]  I. Utochkin,et al.  Parallel averaging of size is possible but range-limited: a reply to Marchant, Simons, and De Fockert. , 2014, Acta psychologica.

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

[3]  K. May,et al.  Inefficiency of orientation averaging: Evidence for hybrid serial/parallel temporal integration. , 2016, Journal of vision.

[4]  Hee Yeon Im,et al.  Ensemble statistics as units of selection , 2015 .

[5]  A. Ishiguchi,et al.  Evidence for a Global Sampling Process in Extraction of Summary Statistics of Item Sizes in a Set , 2016, Front. Psychol..

[6]  P. Tiňo,et al.  Learning predictive statistics from temporal sequences: Dynamics and strategies , 2017, Journal of vision.

[7]  Glyn W Humphreys,et al.  Dissociating the effects of similarity, salience, and top-down processes in search for linearly separable size targets , 2006, Perception & psychophysics.

[8]  Wei Ji Ma,et al.  Requiem for the max rule? , 2015, Vision Research.

[9]  Honghua Chang,et al.  Search performance is better predicted by tileability than presence of a unique basic feature , 2016, Journal of vision.

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

[11]  Preeti Verghese,et al.  Smooth pursuit eye movements in patients with macular degeneration , 2016, Journal of vision.

[12]  A. Chetverikov,et al.  Representing Color Ensembles , 2017, Psychological science.

[13]  Dragan Rangelov,et al.  Visual search for feature singletons: multiple mechanisms produce sequence effects in visual search. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[14]  Hee Yeon Im,et al.  The effects of sampling and internal noise on the representation of ensemble average size , 2012, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[15]  Árni Kristjánsson,et al.  Episodic retrieval and feature facilitation in intertrial priming of visual search , 2011, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[16]  Cathleen M Moore,et al.  Summary statistics of size: fixed processing capacity for multiple ensembles but unlimited processing capacity for single ensembles. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  Stefanie I. Becker,et al.  The role of target-distractor relationships in guiding attention and the eyes in visual search. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[18]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Five factors that guide attention in visual search , 2017, Nature Human Behaviour.

[19]  Jonathan W. Peirce,et al.  PsychoPy—Psychophysics software in Python , 2007, Journal of Neuroscience Methods.

[20]  R. Rosenholtz,et al.  A summary statistic representation in peripheral vision explains visual search. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[21]  Stefanie I. Becker,et al.  Higher set sizes in pop-out search displays do not eliminate priming or enhance target selection , 2013, Vision Research.

[22]  Dragan Rangelov,et al.  Failure to Pop Out: Feature Singletons Do Not Capture Attention Under Low Signal-to-Noise Ratio Conditions , 2017, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[23]  Deniz Başkent,et al.  Normal-Hearing Listeners’ and Cochlear Implant Users’ Perception of Pitch Cues in Emotional Speech , 2015, i-Perception.

[24]  Árni Kristjánsson,et al.  Priming in visual search: Separating the effects of target repetition, distractor repetition and role-reversal , 2008, Vision Research.

[25]  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.

[26]  David Whitney,et al.  Exaggerated groups: amplification in ensemble coding of temporal and spatial features , 2018, Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[27]  ohn,et al.  Accurate rapid averaging of multihue ensembles is due to a limited capacity subsampling mechanism , 2019 .

[28]  Jonathan Westley Peirce,et al.  Generating Stimuli for Neuroscience Using PsychoPy , 2008, Front. Neuroinform..

[29]  G. Alvarez Representing multiple objects as an ensemble enhances visual cognition , 2011, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[30]  Nancy B. Carlisle,et al.  How visual working memory contents influence priming of visual attention , 2018, Psychological research.

[31]  R. Rosenholtz,et al.  A summary-statistic representation in peripheral vision explains visual crowding. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[32]  B. Julesz Textons, the elements of texture perception, and their interactions , 1981, Nature.

[33]  Arni Kristjansson,et al.  Efficient visual search without top-down or bottom-up guidance , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[34]  K. Nakayama,et al.  Priming of pop-out: I. Role of features , 1994, Memory & cognition.

[35]  S. Shergill,et al.  Local and Global Limits on Visual Processing in Schizophrenia , 2015, PloS one.

[36]  Árni Kristjánsson,et al.  Reconsidering Visual Search , 2015, i-Perception.

[37]  J. Wagemans The Oxford handbook of perceptual organization , 2015 .

[38]  M. Bravo,et al.  The role of attention in different visual-search tasks , 1992, Perception & psychophysics.

[39]  A. Chetverikov,et al.  Building ensemble representations: How the shape of preceding distractor distributions affects visual search , 2016, Cognition.

[40]  A. Franklin,et al.  Effects of ensemble complexity and perceptual similarity on rapid averaging of hue. , 2015, Journal of vision.

[41]  D. Bates,et al.  Fitting Linear Mixed-Effects Models Using lme4 , 2014, 1406.5823.

[42]  C. Moore,et al.  The capacity limitations of orientation summary statistics , 2015, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[43]  D. Lamy,et al.  Orientation search is mediated by distractor suppression: Evidence from priming of pop-out , 2013, Vision Research.

[44]  Dominique Lamy,et al.  Priming of Pop-out provides reliable measures of target activation and distractor inhibition in selective attention , 2008, Vision Research.

[45]  Paolo Martini,et al.  System identification in Priming of Pop-Out , 2010, Vision Research.

[46]  J. Brascamp,et al.  Priming of pop-out on multiple time scales during visual search , 2011, Vision Research.

[47]  Christian N. L. Olivers,et al.  Intertrial priming stemming from ambiguity: A new account of priming in visual search , 2006 .

[48]  David Melcher,et al.  Stable statistical representations facilitate visual search. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[49]  M. Johnson,et al.  Circulating microRNAs in Sera Correlate with Soluble Biomarkers of Immune Activation but Do Not Predict Mortality in ART Treated Individuals with HIV-1 Infection: A Case Control Study , 2015, PloS one.

[50]  Igor S Utochkin,et al.  Similarity and heterogeneity effects in visual search are mediated by "segmentability". , 2016, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[51]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Changing your mind: on the contributions of top-down and bottom-up guidance in visual search for feature singletons. , 2003, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[52]  C. Summerfield,et al.  Priming by the variability of visual information , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[53]  David Whitney,et al.  Ensemble perception: Summarizing the scene and broadening the limits of visual processing. , 2012 .

[54]  I. Utochkin,et al.  Ensemble summary statistics as a basis for rapid visual categorization. , 2015, Journal of vision.

[55]  G. Campana,et al.  Where perception meets memory: A review of repetition priming in visual search tasks , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[56]  Dominique Lamy,et al.  Visual consciousness and intertrial feature priming. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[57]  Árni Kristjánsson,et al.  Rapid learning of visual ensembles. , 2017, Journal of vision.