Object attributes combine additively in visual search

We perceive objects as containing a variety of attributes: local features, relations between features, internal details, and global properties. But we know little about how they combine. Here, we report a remarkably simple additive rule that governs how these diverse object attributes combine in vision. The perceived dissimilarity between two objects was accurately explained as a sum of (a) spatially tuned local contour-matching processes modulated by part decomposition; (b) differences in internal details, such as texture; (c) differences in emergent attributes, such as symmetry; and (d) differences in global properties, such as orientation or overall configuration of parts. Our results elucidate an enduring question in object vision by showing that the whole object is not a sum of its parts but a sum of its many attributes.

[1]  Carl R Olson,et al.  Linearly additive shape and color signals in monkey inferotemporal cortex. , 2009, Journal of neurophysiology.

[2]  D. Marr,et al.  Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three-dimensional shapes , 1978, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences.

[3]  C. Olivers,et al.  Symmetry and selective attention: A dissociation between effortless perception and serial search , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[4]  A. Tversky.  Features of Similarity , 1977 .

[5]  J. Wolfe.  Asymmetries in visual search: An introduction , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[6]  R. Shepard.  Attention and the metric structure of the stimulus space. , 1964 .

[7]  Ruth Kimchi,et al.  Dominance of configural properties in visual form perception , 1998 .

[8]  Yaoda Xu,et al.  Early computation of part structure: Evidence from visual search , 2002, Perception & psychophysics.

[9]  R. Kimchi.  Primacy of wholistic processing and global/local paradigm: a critical review. , 1992, Psychological bulletin.

[10]  W. R. Garner,et al.  Effects of focusing strategy on speeded classification with grouping, filtering, and condensation tasks , 1972 .

[11]  Carl R Olson,et al.  Responses to Compound Objects in Monkey Inferotemporal Cortex: The Whole Is Equal to the Sum of the Discrete Parts , 2010, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[12]  S P Arun,et al.  Does linear separability really matter? Complex visual search is explained by simple search. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[13]  Michael C. Corballis,et al.  On the perception of symmetrical and repeated patterns , 1974 .

[14]  A. Tversky,et al.  Similarity of rectangles: An analysis of subjective dimensions , 1975 .

[15]  F ATTNEAVE,et al.  Dimensions of similarity. , 1950, The American journal of psychology.

[16]  James R Pomerantz,et al.  Grouping and emergent features in vision: toward a theory of basic Gestalts. , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[17]  R T Pramod,et al.  Features in visual search combine linearly. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[18]  M. Bertamini,et al.  Brain activity in response to visual symmetry 7 , 2015 .

[19]  C R Olson,et al.  Mirror-image confusion in single neurons of the macaque inferotemporal cortex. , 2000, Science.

[20]  D. Navon.  Forest before trees: The precedence of global features in visual perception , 1977, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  Karl F. Wender,et al.  A test of independence of dimensions in multidimensional scaling , 1971 .

[22]  R. Shepard,et al.  Mental Rotation of Three-Dimensional Objects , 1971, Science.

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

[24]  Willa Kay Wiener-Ehrlich,et al.  Dimensional and metric structures in multidimensional stimuli , 1978, Perception & psychophysics.

[25]  J. Wolfe,et al.  What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? , 2004, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[26]  J. R. Pomerantz,et al.  Emergent features, attention, and perceptual glue in visual form perception. , 1989, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  Marco Bertamini,et al.  Brain Activity in Response to Visual Symmetry. , 2015, Journal of vision.

[28]  J. Duncan,et al.  Visual search and stimulus similarity. , 1989, Psychological review.

[29]  W. Torgerson,et al.  Multidimensional scaling of similarity , 1965, Psychometrika.

[30]  J. Dunn,et al.  Spatial metrics of integral and separable dimensions. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[31]  Carl R Olson,et al.  Representing the Forest before the Trees: A Global Advantage Effect in Monkey Inferotemporal Cortex , 2009, The Journal of Neuroscience.

[32]  Juha Silvanto,et al.  The causal role of the lateral occipital complex in visual mirror symmetry detection and grouping: An fMRI-guided TMS study , 2014, Cortex.

[33]  S. P. Arun,et al.  Turning visual search time on its head , 2012, Vision Research.

[34]  R. Hyman,et al.  Judgments of similarity and spatial models , 1967 .

[35]  Johan Wagemans,et al.  Characteristics and models of human symmetry detection , 1997, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[36]  S. Palmer,et al.  A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: I. Perceptual grouping and figure-ground organization. , 2012, Psychological bulletin.

[37]  Lawrence C. Sager,et al.  Perception of wholes and of their component parts: some configural superiority effects. , 1977, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[38]  D H Brainard,et al.  The Psychophysics Toolbox. , 1997, Spatial vision.

[39]  C. Olson,et al.  Repetition suppression in monkey inferotemporal cortex: relation to behavioral priming. , 2007, Journal of neurophysiology.

[40]  Donald D. Hoffman,et al.  Salience of visual parts , 1997, Cognition.

[41]  Jessika Weiss,et al.  Vision Science Photons To Phenomenology , 2016 .

[42]  J. R. Pomerantz,et al.  A century of Gestalt psychology in visual perception: II. Conceptual and theoretical foundations. , 2012, Psychological bulletin.