How Are Different Properties of a Scene Encoded in Visual Memory?

Recent studies in scene perception suggest that much of what observers believe they see is not retained in visual memory. Depending on the roles they play in organizing the perception of a scene, different visual properties may require different amounts of attention to be incorporated into a mental representation of the scene. The goal of this study was to compare how three visual properties of scenes, colour, object position, and object presence, are encoded in visual memory. We used a variation on the change detection “flicker” task and measured the time to detect scene changes when: (1) a cue was provided regarding the type of change; and, (2) no cue was provided. We hypothesized that cueing would enhance the processing of visual properties that require more attention to be encoded into scene representations, whereas cueing would not have an effect for properties that are readily or automatically encoded in visual memory. In Experiment 1, we found that there was a cueing advantage for colour changes, but not for position or presence changes. In Experiment 2, we found the same cueing effect regardless of whether the colour change altered the configuration of the scene or not. These results are consistent with the idea that properties that typically help determine the configuration of the scene, for example, position and presence, are better encoded in scene representations than are surface properties such as colour.

[1]  M. Day,et al.  Visual search by children: the effect of background variation and the use of visual cues. , 1978, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[2]  Development of Selective Attention during Visual Search. , 1978 .

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

[4]  Leslie G. Ungerleider Two cortical visual systems , 1982 .

[5]  Richard L. Metzger,et al.  The nature of processing early in picture perception , 1983, Psychological research.

[6]  H. Barlow Vision: A computational investigation into the human representation and processing of visual information: David Marr. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1982. pp. xvi + 397 , 1983 .

[7]  Anne Treisman,et al.  Preattentive processing in vision , 1985, Computer Vision Graphics and Image Processing.

[8]  A. Treisman Features and Objects: The Fourteenth Bartlett Memorial Lecture , 1988, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[9]  I. Biederman,et al.  Surface versus edge-based determinants of visual recognition , 1988, Cognitive Psychology.

[10]  G W Humphreys,et al.  The Effects of Surface Detail on Object Categorization and Naming , 1989, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[11]  Susan L. Franzel,et al.  Guided search: an alternative to the feature integration model for visual search. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  C. Bundesen A theory of visual attention. , 1990, Psychological review.

[13]  G E Legge,et al.  Color improves object recognition in normal and low vision. , 1993, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[14]  A. V. D. van der Heijden,et al.  The role of position in object selection in vision. , 1993, Psychological research.

[15]  A. Oliva,et al.  From Blobs to Boundary Edges: Evidence for Time- and Spatial-Scale-Dependent Scene Recognition , 1994 .

[16]  Christopher B. Currie,et al.  Visual stability across saccades while viewing complex pictures. , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  D. Simons In Sight, Out of Mind: When Object Representations Fail , 1996 .

[18]  A. V. D. Heijden,et al.  Attending to color with proper fixation , 1996, Perception & psychophysics.

[19]  W. Epstein,et al.  Priming Spatial Layout of Scenes , 1997 .

[20]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  TO SEE OR NOT TO SEE: The Need for Attention to Perceive Changes in Scenes , 1997 .