Incidental statistical summary representation over time.

Information taken in by the human visual system allows individuals to form statistical representations of sets of items. One's knowledge of natural categories includes statistical information, such as average size of category members and the upper and lower boundaries of the set. Previous research suggests that when subjects attend to a particular dimension of a set of items presented over an extended duration, they quickly learn about the central tendency of the set. However, it is unclear whether such learning can occur incidentally, when subjects are not attending to the relevant dimension of the set. The present study explored whether subjects could reproduce global statistical properties of a set presented over an extended duration when oriented to task-irrelevant properties of the set. Subjects were tested for their memory of its mean, its smallest and largest exemplars, the direction of its skew, and the relative distribution of the items. Subjects were able to accurately recall the average size circle, as well as the upper and lower boundaries of a set of 4,200 circles displayed over an extended period. This suggests that even without intending to do so, they were encoding and updating a statistical summary representation of a task-irrelevant attribute of the circles over time. Such incidental encoding of statistical properties of sets is thus a plausible mechanism for establishing a representation of typicality in category membership.

[1]  Hee Yeon Im,et al.  The effects of sampling and internal noise on the representation of ensemble average size , 2012, Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics.

[2]  G W Humphreys,et al.  Driving attention with the top down: The relative contribution of target templates to the linear separability effect in the size dimension , 2001, Perception & psychophysics.

[3]  H. Helson Adaptation-level as frame of reference for prediction of psychophysical data. , 1947, The American journal of psychology.

[4]  M. Teghtsoonian THE JUDGMENT OF SIZE. , 1965, The American journal of psychology.

[5]  A. Treisman,et al.  Attentional spread in the statistical processing of visual displays , 2005, Perception & psychophysics.

[6]  M. Chun,et al.  Selective attention modulates implicit learning , 2001, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[7]  Daniel R. Little,et al.  Short-term memory scanning viewed as exemplar-based categorization. , 2011, Psychological review.

[8]  David Whitney,et al.  An aftereffect of adaptation to mean size , 2012, Visual cognition.

[9]  L. Hedges,et al.  Category effects on stimulus estimation: Shifting and skewed frequency distributions , 2010, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[10]  I. Utochkin,et al.  Parallel averaging of size is possible but range-limited: a reply to Marchant, Simons, and De Fockert. , 2014, Acta psychologica.

[11]  D. Ariely Seeing Sets: Representation by Statistical Properties , 2001, Psychological science.

[12]  R. Sekuler,et al.  Obligatory and adaptive averaging in visual short-term memory , 2015 .

[13]  Xiaolan Fu,et al.  Unstable mean context causes sensitivity loss and biased estimation of variability. , 2015, Journal of vision.

[14]  Chris Oriet,et al.  Size averaging of irrelevant stimuli cannot be prevented , 2013, Vision Research.

[15]  I. Utochkin,et al.  Ensemble summary statistics as a basis for rapid visual categorization. , 2015, Journal of vision.

[16]  A. Parducci,et al.  An adaptation-level analysis of ordinal effects in judgment. , 1959, Journal of experimental psychology.

[17]  Nicholas B. Turk-Browne,et al.  When numbers and statistics collide: Competition between numerosity perception and statistical learning , 2013 .

[18]  M. Chun,et al.  Contextual Cueing: Implicit Learning and Memory of Visual Context Guides Spatial Attention , 1998, Cognitive Psychology.

[19]  Jack L. Vevea,et al.  Why do categories affect stimulus judgment? , 2000, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[20]  Alice R. Albrecht,et al.  Perceptually Averaging in a Continuous Visual World , 2010, Psychological science.

[21]  Chris Oriet,et al.  Rapid averaging? Not so fast! , 2011, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[22]  Daniel J Simons,et al.  Ensemble representations: effects of set size and item heterogeneity on average size perception. , 2013, Acta psychologica.

[23]  Y. Kareev,et al.  On the misperception of variability. , 2002, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[24]  Jüri Allik,et al.  An almost general theory of mean size perception , 2013, Vision Research.

[25]  David Melcher,et al.  Stable statistical representations facilitate visual search. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[26]  Cathleen M Moore,et al.  Summary statistics of size: fixed processing capacity for multiple ensembles but unlimited processing capacity for single ensembles. , 2014, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[27]  Jennifer E. Corbett,et al.  The whole is indeed more than the sum of its parts: perceptual averaging in the absence of individual item representation. , 2011, Acta psychologica.

[28]  N. Anderson,et al.  Subjective averaging of length with serial presentation , 1969 .

[29]  Mia Setic,et al.  Modelling the statistical processing of visual information , 2007, Neurocomputing.

[30]  R. A. Leibler,et al.  On Information and Sufficiency , 1951 .