Scene grammar shapes the way we interact with objects, strengthens memories, and speeds search

Predictions of environmental rules (here referred to as “scene grammar”) can come in different forms: seeing a toilet in a living room would violate semantic predictions, while finding a toilet brush next to the toothpaste would violate syntactic predictions. The existence of such predictions has usually been investigated by showing observers images containing such grammatical violations. Conversely, the generative process of creating an environment according to one’s scene grammar and its effects on behavior and memory has received little attention. In a virtual reality paradigm, we either instructed participants to arrange objects according to their scene grammar or against it. Subsequently, participants’ memory for the arrangements was probed using a surprise recall (Exp1), or repeated search (Exp2) task. As a result, participants’ construction behavior showed strategic use of larger, static objects to anchor the location of smaller objects which are generally the goals of everyday actions. Further analysis of this scene construction data revealed possible commonalities between the rules governing word usage in language and object usage in naturalistic environments. Taken together, we revealed some of the building blocks of scene grammar necessary for efficient behavior, which differentially influence how we interact with objects and what we remember about scenes.

[1]  A. Clark An embodied cognitive science? , 1999, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[2]  A. Mizuno,et al.  A change of the leading player in flow Visualization technique , 2006, J. Vis..

[3]  George Kingsley Zipf,et al.  Human behavior and the principle of least effort , 1949 .

[4]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Semantic preview benefit during reading. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[5]  Michelle R. Greene Statistics of high-level scene context , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[6]  Pedro M. Valero-Mora,et al.  ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis , 2010 .

[7]  Geoffrey Sampson,et al.  Word frequency distributions , 2002, Computational Linguistics.

[8]  Dejan Draschkow,et al.  Of “what” and “where” in a natural search task: Active object handling supports object location memory beyond the object’s identity , 2016, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[9]  M. Kutas,et al.  An electrophysiological study of scene effects on object identification. , 2003, Brain research. Cognitive brain research.

[10]  Hadley Wickham,et al.  ggplot2 - Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis (2nd Edition) , 2017 .

[11]  R Core Team,et al.  R: A language and environment for statistical computing. , 2014 .

[12]  R. Baayen,et al.  Mixed-effects modeling with crossed random effects for subjects and items , 2008 .

[13]  Miguel P Eckstein,et al.  Object co-occurrence serves as a contextual cue to guide and facilitate visual search in a natural viewing environment. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[14]  Pierre E. Sullivan,et al.  Smoke-wire flow visualization of a synthetic jet , 2013, J. Vis..

[15]  Michael F Land,et al.  Vision and the representation of the surroundings in spatial memory , 2011, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[16]  Michelle R. Greene,et al.  Visual search in scenes involves selective and nonselective pathways , 2011, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[17]  Jodi L. Davenport,et al.  Scene Consistency in Object and Background Perception , 2004, Psychological science.

[18]  Todd S. Horowitz,et al.  Visual search has no memory , 1998, Nature.

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

[20]  Dejan Draschkow,et al.  Gist in time: Scene semantics and structure enhance recall of searched objects. , 2016, Acta psychologica.

[21]  J. Gibson The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception , 1979 .

[22]  P. Holcomb,et al.  An electrophysiological investigation of semantic priming with pictures of real objects. , 1999, Psychophysiology.

[23]  S. Piantadosi Zipf’s word frequency law in natural language: A critical review and future directions , 2014, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[24]  Tim H. W. Cornelissen,et al.  Stuck on semantics: Processing of irrelevant object-scene inconsistencies modulates ongoing gaze behavior , 2017, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[25]  William N. Venables,et al.  Modern Applied Statistics with S , 2010 .

[26]  Michael A. Riley,et al.  Discovering your inner Gibson: Reconciling action-specific and ecological approaches to perception–action , 2014, Psychonomic Bulletin & Review.

[27]  Manabu Iguchi,et al.  A bouncing droplet on an inclined hydrophobic surface , 2010, J. Vis..

[28]  J. Wolfe,et al.  When does repeated search in scenes involve memory? Looking at versus looking for objects in scenes. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[29]  P. König,et al.  Where's the action? The pragmatic turn in cognitive science , 2013, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[30]  Mary M. Hayhoe,et al.  Memory and visual search in naturalistic 2D and 3D environments , 2016, Journal of vision.

[31]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Differential Electrophysiological Signatures of Semantic and Syntactic Scene Processing , 2013, Psychological science.

[32]  M. Bar Visual objects in context , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[33]  Benjamin W Tatler,et al.  The influence of instructions on object memory in a real-world setting. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[34]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Seek and you shall remember: scene semantics interact with visual search to build better memories. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[35]  J. Henderson,et al.  Does gravity matter? Effects of semantic and syntactic inconsistencies on the allocation of attention during scene perception. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[36]  J. Wolfe Saved by a Log , 2012, Psychological science.

[37]  Niko A. Busch,et al.  A Pool of Pairs of Related Objects (POPORO) for Investigating Visual Semantic Integration: Behavioral and Electrophysiological Validation , 2012, Brain Topography.

[38]  Alan Kennedy,et al.  Priorities for selection and representation in natural tasks , 2013, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[39]  J. Wixted The psychology and neuroscience of forgetting. , 2004, Annual review of psychology.

[40]  M. Newman Power laws, Pareto distributions and Zipf's law , 2005 .

[41]  J. Wolfe Visual memory: What do you know about what you saw? , 1998, Current Biology.

[42]  M. Castelhano,et al.  Scene context influences without scene gist: Eye movements guided by spatial associations in visual search , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[43]  Antonio Torralba,et al.  Contextual guidance of eye movements and attention in real-world scenes: the role of global features in object search. , 2006, Psychological review.

[44]  Moshe Bar,et al.  The proactive brain: memory for predictions , 2009, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[45]  John M Henderson,et al.  The time course of initial scene processing for eye movement guidance in natural scene search. , 2010, Journal of vision.

[46]  Michelle R. Greene Estimations of object frequency are frequently overestimated , 2016, Cognition.

[47]  J. Wolfe,et al.  The interplay of episodic and semantic memory in guiding repeated search in scenes , 2013, Cognition.

[48]  D. Cox,et al.  An Analysis of Transformations , 1964 .

[49]  N. Mackworth,et al.  Cognitive determinants of fixation location during picture viewing. , 1978, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[50]  Peter Nijkamp,et al.  Accessibility of Cities in the Digital Economy , 2004, cond-mat/0412004.

[51]  D. Bates,et al.  Parsimonious Mixed Models , 2015, 1506.04967.

[52]  N. Burgess,et al.  Spatial memory: how egocentric and allocentric combine , 2006, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[53]  Russell V. Lenth,et al.  Least-Squares Means: The R Package lsmeans , 2016 .

[54]  J. Wolfe,et al.  The role of memory for visual search in scenes , 2015, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[55]  D. Bates,et al.  Linear Mixed-Effects Models using 'Eigen' and S4 , 2015 .

[56]  R. Schiffer Psychobiology of Language , 1986 .

[57]  J. Henderson,et al.  The effects of semantic consistency on eye movements during complex scene viewing , 1999 .

[58]  I. Biederman,et al.  Scene perception: Detecting and judging objects undergoing relational violations , 1982, Cognitive Psychology.

[59]  Reinhold Kliegl,et al.  Experimental Effects and Individual Differences in Linear Mixed Models: Estimating the Relationship between Spatial, Object, and Attraction Effects in Visual Attention , 2010, Front. Psychology.

[60]  M. Bar,et al.  Scene Vision: Making Sense of What We See , 2014 .

[61]  N. Burgess Spatial Cognition and the Brain , 2008, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[62]  George L. Malcolm,et al.  Making Sense of Real-World Scenes , 2016, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[63]  George Kingsley Zipf,et al.  The Psychobiology of Language , 2022 .

[64]  Jeremy M Wolfe,et al.  Searching for the right word: Hybrid visual and memory search for words , 2014, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[65]  J. Henderson,et al.  Does consistent scene context facilitate object perception? , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[66]  Nao Ninomiya,et al.  The 10th anniversary of journal of visualization , 2007, J. Vis..

[67]  Marek McGann,et al.  Enactive theorists do it on purpose: Toward an enactive account of goals and goal-directedness , 2007 .

[68]  Mary M Hayhoe,et al.  Visual memory and motor planning in a natural task. , 2003, Journal of vision.

[69]  A. Kingstone,et al.  Cognitive Ethology: a new approach for studying human cognition. , 2008, British journal of psychology.

[70]  J. Wixted,et al.  On the Form of Forgetting , 1991 .