Attentional coding of categorical relations in scene perception: Evidence from the flicker paradigm

The purpose of the present investigation was to determine whether the positions of objects in a scene are coded relative to one another categorically (i.e.,above, below, or side of; Experiment 1) and to determine whether spatial position in scene perception is coded preattentively or only under focused attention (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, participants viewed alternating versions of a scene in which one of the objects in the scene changed its categorical relationship to the closest object in the scene, changed only its metric relationship to the closest object in a scene, or appeared and disappeared. Participants were faster at detecting changes that disrupted categorical relations than at detecting changes that disrupted only metric relations. In Experiment 2, this categorical advantage still occurred even when participants were cued to the location of the change. These results suggest that categorical spatial relations are being coded in scene perception and that attention is required in order to encode spatial relations.

[1]  Geoffrey R. Loftus,et al.  Essence of statistics, 2nd ed. , 1988 .

[2]  Ranxiao Frances Wang,et al.  Perceiving Real-World Viewpoint Changes , 1998 .

[3]  S. Kosslyn,et al.  Categorical versus coordinate spatial relations: computational analyses and computer simulations. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[4]  Nancy Kanwisher,et al.  A cortical representation of the local visual environment , 1998, Nature.

[5]  E. Cooper,et al.  Categorical perception of relative orientation in visual object recognition , 2001, Memory & cognition.

[6]  D. Simons,et al.  Failure to detect changes to attended objects in motion pictures , 1997 .

[7]  T. McNamara,et al.  Multiple views of spatial memory , 1997 .

[8]  M J Tarr,et al.  Is human object recognition better described by geon structural descriptions or by multiple views? Comment on Biederman and Gerhardstein (1993). , 1995, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[9]  Michael J. Tarr,et al.  Article Commentary: Orientation-Dependent Mechanisms in Shape Recognition: Further Issues , 1991 .

[10]  G. Logan.  Spatial attention and the apprehension of spatial relations. , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[11]  J. Henderson,et al.  High-level scene perception. , 1999, Annual review of psychology.

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

[13]  Ranxiao Frances Wang,et al.  Active and passive scene recognition across views , 1999, Cognition.

[14]  H H Bülthoff,et al.  Psychophysical support for a two-dimensional view interpolation theory of object recognition. , 1992, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[15]  Jun Saiki,et al.  Connectedness and the integration of parts with relations in shape perception. , 1998 .

[16]  P. Schyns,et al.  Blind to Object Changes: When Learning the Same Object at Different Levels of Categorization Modifies Its Perception , 1999 .

[17]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  On the Failure to Detect Changes in Scenes Across Brief Interruptions , 2000 .

[18]  John E. Hummel,et al.  Two Roles for Attention in Shape Perception: A Structural Description Model of Visual Scrutiny , 1998 .

[19]  S. Ullman.  Aligning pictorial descriptions: An approach to object recognition , 1989, Cognition.

[20]  J. Hummel,et al.  Connectedness and part-relation integration in shape category learning , 1998, Memory & cognition.

[21]  M. Tarr,et al.  When does Human Object Recognition use a Viewer-Centered Reference Frame? , 1990 .

[22]  I. Biederman,et al.  Viewpoint-dependent mechanisms in visual object recognition: Reply to Tarr and Bülthoff (1995). , 1995 .

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

[24]  E. Cooper,et al.  Differences in the coding of spatial relations in face identification and basic-level object recognition. , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[25]  J. Hummel,et al.  Categorical relations in shape perception. , 1996, Spatial vision.

[26]  S. Ullman.  High-Level Vision: Object Recognition and Visual Cognition , 1996 .

[27]  I. Biederman.  Recognition-by-components: a theory of human image understanding. , 1987, Psychological review.

[28]  J. Hummel,et al.  The role of attention in priming for left-right reflections of object images: evidence for a dual representation of object shape. , 1998 .

[29]  I. Biederman,et al.  Dynamic binding in a neural network for shape recognition. , 1992, Psychological review.

[30]  J. Jonides.  Voluntary versus automatic control over the mind's eye's movement , 1981 .

[31]  J. Henderson,et al.  The Role of Fixation Position in Detecting Scene Changes Across Saccades , 1999 .

[32]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Evidence from unilateral visual neglect , 1995 .

[33]  D. E. Irwin,et al.  Integration and accumulation of information across saccadic eye movements. , 1996 .

[34]  G. Loftus.  Essence Of Statistics , 1982 .

[35]  T. McNamara,et al.  Viewpoint Dependence in Scene Recognition , 1997 .

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

[37]  Glyn W. Humphreys,et al.  Attention to within-object and between-object spatial representations: multiple sites for visual selection , 1994 .

[38]  David E. Irwin,et al.  MEMORY FOR STRUCTURAL INFORMATION ACROSS EYE MOVEMENTS , 1995 .