Using multidimensional scaling to quantify similarity in visual search and beyond

Visual search is one of the most widely studied topics in vision science, both as an independent topic of interest, and as a tool for studying attention and visual cognition. A wide literature exists that seeks to understand how people find things under varying conditions of difficulty and complexity, and in situations ranging from the mundane (e.g., looking for one’s keys) to those with significant societal importance (e.g., baggage or medical screening). A primary determinant of the ease and probability of success during search are the similarity relationships that exist in the search environment, such as the similarity between the background and the target, or the likeness of the non-targets to one another. A sense of similarity is often intuitive, but it is seldom quantified directly. This presents a problem in that similarity relationships are imprecisely specified, limiting the capacity of the researcher to examine adequately their influence. In this article, we present a novel approach to overcoming this problem that combines multi-dimensional scaling (MDS) analyses with behavioral and eye-tracking measurements. We propose a method whereby MDS can be repurposed to successfully quantify the similarity of experimental stimuli, thereby opening up theoretical questions in visual search and attention that cannot currently be addressed. These quantifications, in conjunction with behavioral and oculomotor measures, allow for critical observations about how similarity affects performance, information selection, and information processing. We provide a demonstration and tutorial of the approach, identify documented examples of its use, discuss how complementary computer vision methods could also be adopted, and close with a discussion of potential avenues for future application of this technique.

[1]  R. Shepard,et al.  The internal representation of numbers , 1975, Cognitive Psychology.

[2]  S. Liversedge,et al.  Saccadic eye movements and cognition , 2000, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[3]  N. Jaworska,et al.  A Review of Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) and its Utility in Various Psychological Domains , 2009 .

[4]  Eytan Ruppin,et al.  Similarity in Perception: A Window to Brain Organization , 2001, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[5]  D S Blough,et al.  Quantitative relations between visual search speed and target-distractor similarity , 1988, Perception & psychophysics.

[6]  Yifan Peng,et al.  Studying Relationships between Human Gaze, Description, and Computer Vision , 2013, 2013 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition.

[7]  Erik D. Reichle,et al.  Eye movements in reading and information processing : , 2015 .

[8]  J. Henderson Human gaze control during real-world scene perception , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

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

[10]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  ImageNet classification with deep convolutional neural networks , 2012, Commun. ACM.

[11]  Melina A. Kunar,et al.  The role of memory and restricted context in repeated visual search , 2008, Perception & psychophysics.

[12]  Wei Zhang,et al.  Object class recognition using multiple layer boosting with heterogeneous features , 2005, 2005 IEEE Computer Society Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR'05).

[13]  Rachel A Robbins,et al.  A Review and Clarification of the Terms “holistic,” “configural,” and “relational” in the Face Perception Literature , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[14]  Naomi M. Kenner,et al.  How fast can you change your mind? The speed of top-down guidance in visual search , 2004, Vision Research.

[15]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Similarity in context , 1997, Memory & cognition.

[16]  C. Koch,et al.  Computational modelling of visual attention , 2001, Nature Reviews Neuroscience.

[17]  Robert L. Goldstone The role of similarity in categorization: providing a groundwork , 1994, Cognition.

[18]  Kyle R. Cave,et al.  Search for multiple targets of different colours: misguided eye movements reveal a reduction of colour selectivity , 2011 .

[19]  P. Hofstaetter [Similarity]. , 2020, Psyche.

[20]  Radford M. Neal Pattern Recognition and Machine Learning , 2007, Technometrics.

[21]  Megan H. Papesh,et al.  Deficits in cross-race face learning: insights from eye movements and pupillometry. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[22]  R. Shepard,et al.  How a cognitive psychologist came to seek universal laws , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[23]  Patrick Cavanagh,et al.  Mobile computation: spatiotemporal integration of the properties of objects in motion. , 2008, Journal of vision.

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

[25]  S Ullman,et al.  Shifts in selective visual attention: towards the underlying neural circuitry. , 1985, Human neurobiology.

[26]  A. Pollatsek,et al.  The effects of neighborhood frequency in reading and lexical decision. , 1998, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  Patrick J. F. Groenen,et al.  Modern Multidimensional Scaling: Theory and Applications , 2003 .

[28]  R. Goebel,et al.  Human Object-Similarity Judgments Reflect and Transcend the Primate-IT Object Representation , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[29]  William G Hayward,et al.  Visual search. , 2013, Wiley interdisciplinary reviews. Cognitive science.

[30]  K. Rayner Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20 years of research. , 1998, Psychological bulletin.

[31]  Michael C Hout,et al.  Target templates: the precision of mental representations affects attentional guidance and decision-making in visual search , 2015, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[32]  David H Brainard,et al.  Surface color perception and equivalent illumination models. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[33]  David A. Tovar,et al.  Representational dynamics of object vision: the first 1000 ms. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[34]  Tamaryn Menneer,et al.  Visual similarity is stronger than semantic similarity in guiding visual search for numbers , 2014 .

[35]  C. Helfrich-Förster,et al.  Drosophila timeless2 Is Required for Chromosome Stability and Circadian Photoreception , 2010, Current Biology.

[36]  Xingshan Li,et al.  Search for two categories of target produces fewer fixations to target-color items. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[37]  S. Goldinger,et al.  Episodic memory reflected in printed word naming , 2004, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[38]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  The sensitization and differentiation of dimensions during category learning. , 2001, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[39]  R N Shepard,et al.  Multidimensional Scaling, Tree-Fitting, and Clustering , 1980, Science.

[40]  G. Zelinsky,et al.  Short article: Search guidance is proportional to the categorical specificity of a target cue , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[41]  Gregory J. Zelinsky,et al.  Searching through the hierarchy: How level of target categorization affects visual search , 2012, Visual cognition.

[42]  Gregory J. Zelinsky,et al.  Classifying objects based on their visual similarity to target categories , 2008 .

[43]  A. Treisman Search, similarity, and integration of features between and within dimensions. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[44]  Michael Lindenbaum,et al.  Predicting visual search performance by quantifying stimuli similarities. , 2008, Journal of vision.

[45]  Ali Borji,et al.  State-of-the-Art in Visual Attention Modeling , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence.

[46]  Robert L. Goldstone,et al.  Relational similarity and the nonindependence of features in similarity judgments , 1991, Cognitive Psychology.

[47]  Carrick C. Williams,et al.  To see and remember: Visually specific information is retained in memory from previously attended objects in natural scenes , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[48]  Douglas L. Hintzman,et al.  Judgments of frequency and recognition memory in a multiple-trace memory model. , 1988 .

[49]  Dennis Norris,et al.  Visual similarity effects on masked priming , 2014, Memory & cognition.

[50]  G. Zelinsky A theory of eye movements during target acquisition. , 2008, Psychological review.

[51]  Robert G Alexander,et al.  Visual similarity effects in categorical search. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[52]  Yifan Peng,et al.  Modelling eye movements in a categorical search task , 2013, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences.

[53]  Stephen D. Goldinger,et al.  A multidimensional scaling analysis of own- and cross-race face spaces , 2010, Cognition.

[54]  A. Torralba,et al.  The role of context in object recognition , 2007, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[55]  A. Tversky,et al.  Similarity, separability, and the triangle inequality. , 1982, Psychological review.

[56]  Adam T. Biggs,et al.  Improving the Efficacy of Security Screening Tasks: A Review of Visual Search Challenges and Ways to Mitigate Their Adverse Effects , 2015 .

[57]  Douglas L. Hintzman,et al.  "Schema Abstraction" in a Multiple-Trace Memory Model , 1986 .

[58]  James W Bisley,et al.  The what, where, and why of priority maps and their interactions with visual working memory , 2015, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

[59]  Jesse Spencer-Smith,et al.  The Dynamics of Similarity , 1997 .

[60]  Michael C. Hout,et al.  Host species and developmental stage, but not host social structure, affects bacterial community structure in socially polymorphic bees. , 2014, FEMS microbiology ecology.

[61]  D. Gentner,et al.  Respects for similarity , 1993 .

[62]  Rajesh P. N. Rao,et al.  Eye movements in iconic visual search , 2002, Vision Research.

[63]  J. V. van Berkum,et al.  How robust is the language architecture? The case of mood , 2013, Front. Psychol..

[64]  Naomi M. Kenner,et al.  Low target prevalence is a stubborn source of errors in visual search tasks. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[65]  Gregory J. Zelinsky,et al.  Searching for camouflaged targets: Effects of target-background similarity on visual search , 2006, Vision Research.

[66]  David C Knill,et al.  Sensorimotor Processing and Goal-Directed Movement. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[67]  R. Shepard The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. II , 1962 .

[68]  Forrest W. Young,et al.  ALSCAL: A nonmetric multidimensional scaling program with several individual-differences options , 1978 .

[69]  R. Nosofsky Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. , 1986 .

[70]  Christopher K. Riesbeck,et al.  Inside Case-Based Reasoning , 1989 .

[71]  Graham Thompson,et al.  The Role of Semantic Clustering in Optimal Memory Foraging , 2015, Cogn. Sci..

[72]  G Salton,et al.  Developments in Automatic Text Retrieval , 1991, Science.

[73]  R. Nosofsky Attention, similarity, and the identification-categorization relationship. , 1986, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[74]  Allen Allport,et al.  Visual attention , 1989 .

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

[76]  Matthieu Guillaumin,et al.  From categories to subcategories: Large-scale image classification with partial class label refinement , 2015, 2015 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition (CVPR).

[77]  Grigori Yourganov,et al.  The Perception of Naturalness Correlates with Low-Level Visual Features of Environmental Scenes , 2014, PloS one.

[78]  G C Gilmore,et al.  Multidimensional letter similarity derived from recognition errors , 1979, Perception & psychophysics.

[79]  Ronald A. Rensink,et al.  The rapid extraction of numeric meaning , 2006, Vision Research.

[80]  Pauline Faye,et al.  Perceptive free sorting and verbalization tasks with naive subjects: an alternative to descriptive mappings , 2004 .

[81]  L. Itti Author address: , 1999 .

[82]  J. Wolfe,et al.  Guided Search 2.0 A revised model of visual search , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[83]  S. Goldinger Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical access. , 1998, Psychological review.

[84]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Looking ahead: the perceived direction of gaze shifts before the eyes move. , 2009, Journal of vision.

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

[86]  Stefanie I. Becker Determinants of Dwell Time in Visual Search: Similarity or Perceptual Difficulty? , 2011, PloS one.

[87]  S. M. Luria,et al.  Eye movements during search for coded and uncoded targets , 1975 .

[88]  Stephen R. Mitroff,et al.  Attentional guidance by working memory overrides saliency cues in visual search , 2012 .

[89]  N. Kriegeskorte,et al.  Inverse MDS: Inferring Dissimilarity Structure from Multiple Item Arrangements , 2012, Front. Psychology.

[90]  Man-Suk Oh,et al.  A simple and efficient Bayesian procedure for selecting dimensionality in multidimensional scaling , 2012, J. Multivar. Anal..

[91]  R. Shiffrin,et al.  A retrieval model for both recognition and recall. , 1984, Psychological review.

[92]  R N SHEPARD,et al.  Analysis of Proximities as a Technique for the Study of Information Processing in Man1 , 1963, Human factors.

[93]  M. Lee Determining the Dimensionality of Multidimensional Scaling Representations for Cognitive Modeling. , 2001, Journal of mathematical psychology.

[94]  D G Altman,et al.  Towards a framework for analysis of eye-tracking studies in the three dimensional environment: a study of visual search by experienced readers of endoluminal CT colonography. , 2014, The British journal of radiology.

[95]  R. Shepard The analysis of proximities: Multidimensional scaling with an unknown distance function. I. , 1962 .

[96]  Jeremy M. Wolfe Guided Search 4.0: A guided search model that does not require memory for rejected distractors , 2010 .

[97]  A Treisman,et al.  Feature analysis in early vision: evidence from search asymmetries. , 1988, Psychological review.

[98]  G. Zelinsky,et al.  Eye can read your mind: decoding gaze fixations to reveal categorical search targets. , 2013, Journal of vision.

[99]  Gyslain Giguère,et al.  Collecting and analyzing data in multidimensional scaling experiments: A guide for psychologists using SPSS , 2006 .

[100]  P. S. Vivekananthan,et al.  A multidimensional approach to the structure of personality impressions. , 1968, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[101]  Michael C Hout,et al.  The Novel Object and Unusual Name (NOUN) Database: A collection of novel images for use in experimental research , 2016, Behavior research methods.

[102]  Forrest W. Young,et al.  Introduction to Multidimensional Scaling: Theory, Methods, and Applications , 1981 .

[103]  J. Duncan,et al.  Beyond the search surface: visual search and attentional engagement. , 1992, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[104]  Joseph L. Zinnes,et al.  Theory and Methods of Scaling. , 1958 .

[105]  G. Zelinsky,et al.  Modeling guidance and recognition in categorical search: bridging human and computer object detection. , 2012, Journal of vision.

[106]  George L. Malcolm,et al.  Searching in the dark: Cognitive relevance drives attention in real-world scenes , 2009, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[107]  Ali Borji,et al.  Quantitative Analysis of Human-Model Agreement in Visual Saliency Modeling: A Comparative Study , 2013, IEEE Transactions on Image Processing.

[108]  J. Chang,et al.  Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an n-way generalization of “Eckart-Young” decomposition , 1970 .

[109]  Michael C Hout,et al.  Incidental learning speeds visual search by lowering response thresholds, not by improving efficiency: evidence from eye movements. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[110]  Kyle R. Cave,et al.  Dual-target search for high and low prevalence X-ray threat targets , 2010 .

[111]  Xin Chen,et al.  Real-world visual search is dominated by top-down guidance , 2006, Vision Research.

[112]  Preeti Verghese,et al.  The psychophysics of visual search , 2000, Vision Research.

[113]  Nick Donnelly,et al.  The impact of Relative Prevalence on dual-target search for threat items from airport X-ray screening. , 2010, Acta psychologica.

[114]  Ellen M. Migo,et al.  A visual object stimulus database with standardized similarity information , 2013, Behavior research methods.

[115]  M. Chun,et al.  Top-Down Attentional Guidance Based on Implicit Learning of Visual Covariation , 1999 .

[116]  Paul E. Green,et al.  Multidimensional Scaling: Concepts and Applications , 1989 .

[117]  Michael C. Hout,et al.  Multidimensional Scaling , 2003, Encyclopedic Dictionary of Archaeology.

[118]  R. Nosofsky,et al.  An exemplar-based random walk model of speeded classification. , 1997, Psychological review.

[119]  R. Shepard,et al.  Toward a universal law of generalization for psychological science. , 1987, Science.

[120]  K. Rayner The 35th Sir Frederick Bartlett Lecture: Eye movements and attention in reading, scene perception, and visual search , 2009, Quarterly journal of experimental psychology.

[121]  Bolei Zhou,et al.  Object Detectors Emerge in Deep Scene CNNs , 2014, ICLR.

[122]  Michael C. Hout,et al.  The versatility of SpAM: a fast, efficient, spatial method of data collection for multidimensional scaling. , 2013, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[123]  Alex D. Hwang,et al.  A model of top-down attentional control during visual search in complex scenes. , 2009, Journal of vision.

[124]  Max Coltheart,et al.  Access to the internal lexicon , 1977 .

[125]  Stephen R Mitroff,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology : Human Perception and Performance Attentional Guidance by Working Memory Overrides Salience Cues in Visual Search , 2013 .

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

[127]  Nick Donnelly,et al.  The cost of search for multiple targets: effects of practice and target similarity. , 2009, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

[128]  Willem J. Heiser,et al.  PROXSCAL: A Multidimensional Scaling Program for Individual Differences Scaling with Constraints , 2014 .

[129]  Wolf Schwarz,et al.  Numerical distance effects in visual search , 2012, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[130]  Gabriela Csurka,et al.  Images as sets of locally weighted features , 2012, Comput. Vis. Image Underst..

[131]  John Palmer,et al.  Visual search and attention: an overview. , 2004, Spatial vision.

[132]  D. Ballard,et al.  Eye guidance in natural vision: reinterpreting salience. , 2011, Journal of vision.

[133]  R. Goldstone An efficient method for obtaining similarity data , 1994 .

[134]  Roger N. Shepard,et al.  Additive clustering: Representation of similarities as combinations of discrete overlapping properties. , 1979 .

[135]  Nick Donnelly,et al.  Using the dual-target cost to explore the nature of search target representations. , 2012, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[136]  Gregory J Zelinsky,et al.  Effects of target typicality on categorical search. , 2014, Journal of vision.

[137]  Stephen D. Goldinger,et al.  MM-MDS: A Multidimensional Scaling Database with Similarity Ratings for 240 Object Categories from the Massive Memory Picture Database , 2014, PloS one.

[138]  Jeremy M Wolfe,et al.  Visual Attention , 2020, Computational Models for Cognitive Vision.

[139]  Gregory J Zelinsky,et al.  TAM: Explaining off-object fixations and central fixation tendencies as effects of population averaging during search , 2012, Visual cognition.

[140]  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.

[141]  C. Koch,et al.  Probabilistic modeling of eye movement data during conjunction search via feature-based attention. , 2007, Journal of vision.

[142]  Nick Donnelly,et al.  High or low target prevalence increases the dual-target cost in visual search. , 2010, Journal of experimental psychology. Applied.

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

[144]  Stephen D. Goldinger,et al.  Learning in repeated visual search , 2010, Attention, perception & psychophysics.