Comparative visual search: a difference that makes a difference

Abstract In this article we present a new experimental paradigm: comparative visual search. Each half of a display contains simple geometrical objects of three different colors and forms. The two display-halves are identical except for one object mismatched in either color or form. The subject’s task is to find this mismatch. We illustrate the potential of this paradigm for investigating the underlying complex processes of perception and cognition by means of an eye-tracking study. Three possible search strategies are outlined, discussed, and reexamined on the basis of experimental results. Each strategy is characterized by the way it partitions the field of objects into “chunks.” These strategies are: (i) Stimulus-wise scanning with minimization of total scan path length (a “traveling salesman” strategy), (ii) scanning of the objects in fixed-size areas (a “searchlight” strategy), and (iii) scanning of object sets based on variably sized clusters defined by object density and heterogeneity (a “clustering” strategy). To elucidate the processes underlying comparative visual search, we introduce besides object density a new entropy-based measure for object heterogeneity. The effects of local density and entropy on several basic and derived eye-movement variables clearly rule out the traveling salesman strategy, but are most compatible with the clustering strategy.

[1]  H. Pashler,et al.  Detecting conjunctions of color and form: Reassessing the serial search hypothesis , 1987, Perception & psychophysics.

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

[3]  M. Farah,et al.  Does visual attention select objects or locations? , 1994, Journal of experimental psychology. General.

[4]  C. Trevarthen,et al.  Two mechanisms of vision in primates , 1968, Psychologische Forschung.

[5]  C. Scialfa,et al.  Response times and eye movements in feature and conjunction search as a function of target eccentricity , 1998, Perception & psychophysics.

[6]  G. Humphreys,et al.  View specificity in object processing: Evidence from picture matching , 1996 .

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

[8]  J. O'Regan Visual Acuity, Lexical Structure, and Eye Movements in Word Recognition , 1989 .

[9]  Rajesh P. N. Rao,et al.  Learning Saccadic Eye Movements Using Multiscale Spatial Filters , 1994, NIPS.

[10]  David E. Irwin,et al.  Modern mental chronometry , 1988, Biological Psychology.

[11]  D E Williams,et al.  Preattentive guidance of eye movements during triple conjunction search tasks: The effects of feature discriminability and saccadic amplitude , 2001, Psychonomic bulletin & review.

[12]  M. Just,et al.  The psychology of reading and language comprehension , 1986 .

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

[14]  I Biederman,et al.  Metric invariance in object recognition: a review and further evidence. , 1992, Canadian journal of psychology.

[15]  E. Diesch,et al.  Object identification: The mental representation of physical and conceptual attributes , 1984, Memory & cognition.

[16]  M. Tarr,et al.  Mental rotation and orientation-dependence in shape recognition , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[17]  Robert L. Goldstone Similarity, interactive activation, and mapping , 1994 .

[18]  Helge J. Ritter,et al.  An Artificial Neural Network for High Precision Eye Movement Tracking , 1994, KI.

[19]  Bruce Bridgeman,et al.  A theory of visual stability across saccadic eye movements , 1994, Behavioral and Brain Sciences.

[20]  D. Gentner,et al.  Commonalities and differences in similarity comparisons , 1996, Memory & cognition.

[21]  R. Shepard,et al.  Mental Images and Their Transformations , 1982 .

[22]  Elizabeth A. Krupinski,et al.  Recording and analyzing eye-position data using a microcomputer workstation , 1992 .

[23]  Alastair G. Gale,et al.  Visual search 2 , 1993 .

[24]  Leslie G. Ungerleider,et al.  Object vision and spatial vision: two cortical pathways , 1983, Trends in Neurosciences.

[25]  B. C. Motter,et al.  The guidance of eye movements during active visual search , 1998, Vision Research.

[26]  B. Velichkovsky Communicating attention: Gaze position transfer in cooperative problem solving , 1995 .

[27]  R L Klatzky,et al.  Using visual codes for comparisons of pictures , 1974, Memory & cognition.

[28]  G W Humphreys,et al.  Varieties of Object Constancy , 1989, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

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

[30]  D. Ballard,et al.  Memory Representations in Natural Tasks , 1995, Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience.

[31]  Dave M. Stampe,et al.  Heuristic filtering and reliable calibration methods for video-based pupil-tracking systems , 1993 .

[32]  B. Velichkovsky Visual cognition and its spatial-temporal context , 1982 .

[33]  I. Rock,et al.  Can we imagine how objects look from other viewpoints? , 1989, Cognitive Psychology.

[34]  A. Treisman,et al.  Conjunction search revisited , 1990 .

[35]  G. Keith Humphrey,et al.  Codes and operations in picture matching , 1993, Psychological research.

[36]  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.