Visual Search for Conjunctions of Physical and Numerical Size Shows That They Are Processed Independently

The size congruity effect refers to the interaction between numerical magnitude and physical digit size in a symbolic comparison task. Though this effect is well established in the typical 2-item scenario, the mechanisms at the root of the interference remain unclear. Two competing explanations have emerged in the literature: an early interaction model and a late interaction model. In the present study, we used visual conjunction search to test competing predictions from these 2 models. Participants searched for targets that were defined by a conjunction of physical and numerical size. Some distractors shared the target’s physical size, and the remaining distractors shared the target’s numerical size. We held the total number of search items fixed and manipulated the ratio of the 2 distractor set sizes. The results from 3 experiments converge on the conclusion that numerical magnitude is not a guiding feature for visual search, and that physical and numerical magnitude are processed independently, which supports a late interaction model of the size congruity effect.

[1]  I. Arend,et al.  Choosing the larger versus choosing the smaller: Asymmetries in the size congruity effect. , 2015, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[2]  H. Heinze,et al.  On the interaction of numerical and size information in digit comparison: a behavioral and event-related potential study , 1998, Neuropsychologia.

[3]  Thomas J. Faulkenberry,et al.  Response trajectories capture the continuous dynamics of the size congruity effect. , 2016, Acta psychologica.

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

[5]  D. Algom,et al.  Stroop and Garner effects in comparative judgment of numerals: The role of attention. , 1999 .

[6]  G. Michael,et al.  Salience-based progression of visual attention , 2011, Behavioural Brain Research.

[7]  Derek Besner,et al.  Ideographic and alphabetic processing in skilled reading of English , 1979, Neuropsychologia.

[8]  L. E. Krueger The category effect in visual search depends on physical rather than conceptual differences , 1984, Perception & psychophysics.

[9]  Gary Lupyan,et al.  Perceptual processing is facilitated by ascribing meaning to novel stimuli , 2008, Current Biology.

[10]  Howard E Egeth,et al.  Biased competition and visual search: the role of luminance and size contrast , 2007, Psychological research.

[11]  Evan F. Risko,et al.  Paying attention to attention: evidence for an attentional contribution to the size congruity effect , 2013, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[12]  H. Nothdurft,et al.  Salience-controlled visual search: Are the brightest and the least bright targets found by different processes? , 2006 .

[13]  John C. Norcross,et al.  Ethical Principles of Psychologists and Code of Conduct , 2013 .

[14]  Matthew P. Gerrie,et al.  Individual differences in working memory capacity and visual search: The roles of top-down and bottom-up processing , 2007, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[15]  E. Reingold,et al.  Attentional guidance during visual search among patients with schizophrenia , 2011, Schizophrenia Research.

[16]  Dietmar Heinke,et al.  Bottom-up guidance to grouped items in conjunction search: Evidence for color grouping , 2012, Vision Research.

[17]  Jan Theeuwes,et al.  SEARCH FOR A CONJUNCTIVELY DEFINED TARGET CAN BE SELECTIVELY LIMITED TO A COLOR-DEFINED SUBSET OF ELEMENTS , 1995 .

[18]  M. Masson,et al.  Using confidence intervals in within-subject designs , 1994, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[19]  M. Pomplun,et al.  Distractor Ratio Influences Patterns of Eye Movements during Visual Search , 2000, Perception.

[20]  Tom Verguts,et al.  The size congruity effect: Is bigger always more? , 2011, Cognition.

[21]  J. Braun Visual search among items of different salience: removal of visual attention mimics a lesion in extrastriate area V4 , 1994, The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience.

[22]  Harold Bekkering,et al.  Interaction between numbers and size during visual search , 2016, Psychological research.

[23]  G. Lupyan The conceptual grouping effect: Categories matter (and named categories matter more) , 2008, Cognition.

[24]  Vincent Walsh A theory of magnitude: common cortical metrics of time, space and quantity , 2003, Trends in Cognitive Sciences.

[25]  J. Jonides,et al.  A conceptual category effect in visual search: O as letter or as digit , 1972 .

[26]  W. Gevers,et al.  Beyond left and right: Automaticity and flexibility of number-space associations , 2016, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[27]  Kenith V. Sobel,et al.  Target grouping in visual search for multiple digits , 2015, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

[28]  F. Wilkinson,et al.  Distractor Ratio and Grouping Processes in Visual Conjunction Search , 1992, Perception.

[29]  U. Neisser VISUAL SEARCH. , 1964, Scientific American.

[30]  R. Engle,et al.  Working memory capacity and the top-down control of visual search: Exploring the boundaries of "executive attention". , 2006, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[31]  R. Cohen Kadosh,et al.  Sequential Analysis of the Numerical Stroop Effect Reveals Response Suppression , 2011, Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition.

[32]  A. Henik,et al.  Is three greater than five: The relation between physical and semantic size in comparison tasks , 1982, Memory & cognition.

[33]  L. Boroditsky,et al.  Time in the mind: Using space to think about time , 2008, Cognition.

[34]  M. Proulx Bottom-up guidance in visual search for conjunctions. , 2007, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[35]  Thomas J. Faulkenberry,et al.  Bottom-up and top-down attentional contributions to the size congruity effect , 2016, Attention, perception & psychophysics.

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

[37]  H. Egeth,et al.  Goal-directed guidance of attention: evidence from conjunctive visual search. , 1997, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[38]  Michael J. Proulx,et al.  Size Matters: Large Objects Capture Attention in Visual Search , 2010, PloS one.

[39]  Kyle R Cave,et al.  Roles of salience and strategy in conjunction search. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[40]  S. Hochstein,et al.  How Serial is Serial Processing in Vision? , 1989, Perception.

[41]  S. Thompson-Schill,et al.  Conceptual Penetration of Visual Processing , 2010, Psychological science.

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

[43]  Bodo Winter,et al.  Of magnitudes and metaphors: Explaining cognitive interactions between space, time, and number , 2015, Cortex.

[44]  J. Duncan Category effects in visual search: A failure to replicate the “oh-zero” phenomenon , 1983, Perception & psychophysics.