Preattentive Processing of Object Size: Implications for Theories of Size Perception

Information about the visual angle size of objects is important for maintaining object constancy with variations in viewing distance. Although human observers are quite accurate at judging spatial separations (or cross-sectional size), they are prone to error when there are other spans nearby, as in classical illusions such as the Müller-Lyer illusion. It is possible to reconcile these aspects of size perception by assuming that the size domain is sampled sparsely. It was shown by means of a visual search procedure that the size of objects is processed preattentively and in parallel across the visual field. It was demonstrated that an object's size, rather than its boundary curvature or spatial-frequency content, provides the basis for parallel visual search. It was also shown that texture borders could be substituted for luminance borders, indicating that object boundaries at the relevant spatial scale provide the input to size perception. Parallel processing imposes a severe computational constraint which provides support for the assumption of sparse sampling. An economical model based on several broadly tuned layers of size detectors is proposed to account for the parallel extraction of size, the Weberian behaviour of size discrimination, and the occurrence of strong interference effects in the size domain.

[1]  C. R. Carlson,et al.  Visual illusions without low spatial frequencies , 1984, Vision Research.

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

[3]  D. Badcock How do we discriminate relative spatial phase? , 1984, Vision Research.

[4]  G. Westheimer,et al.  Spatial location and hyperacuity: The centre/surround localization contribution function has two substrates , 1985, Vision Research.

[5]  P. Cavanagh,et al.  Effect of surface medium on visual search for orientation and size features. , 1990, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[6]  S. Klein,et al.  Position sense of the peripheral retina. , 1987, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[7]  J. Predebon Illusions and aftereffects of length in the minimal form of the parallel-lines configuration: A reexamination , 1989, Perception & psychophysics.

[8]  Drew H. Abney,et al.  Journal of Experimental Psychology : Human Perception and Performance Influence of Musical Groove on Postural Sway , 2015 .

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

[10]  Jorge L. Mendoza,et al.  Analysis of repeated measurements. , 1979 .

[11]  R. Day,et al.  On the Morinaga Misalignment Illusion. , 1983, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[12]  R. Dewar Distribution of practice and the Müller-Lyer illusion1 , 1968 .

[13]  Alfred H. Holway,et al.  Determinants of Apparent Visual Size with Distance Variant , 1941 .

[14]  M. García-Pérez Visual phenomena without low spatial frequencies: A closer look , 1991, Vision Research.

[15]  A. Ginsburg Psychological Correlates of a Model of the Human Visual System , 1971 .

[16]  C. A. Burbeck Position and spatial frequency in large-scale localization judgments , 1987, Vision Research.

[17]  M. Morgan,et al.  Biases and sensitivities in geometrical illusions , 1990, Vision Research.

[18]  Hugh R. Wilson,et al.  Shifts in perceived size due to masking , 1983, Vision Research.

[19]  W. Richards,et al.  Mechanisms of contour curvature discrimination. , 1989, Journal of the Optical Society of America. A, Optics and image science.

[20]  A. Pressey,et al.  The effects of varying fins in Müller-Lyer and Holding illusions , 1990, Psychological research.

[21]  David Marr,et al.  VISION A Computational Investigation into the Human Representation and Processing of Visual Information , 2009 .

[22]  R. Smith,et al.  Size Discrimination with Low Spatial Frequencies , 1982, Perception.

[23]  Dennis M. Levi,et al.  “Weber's law” for position: Unconfounding the role of separation and eccentricity , 1988, Vision Research.

[24]  R H Day,et al.  Müller-Lyer: Illusion of Size or Position? , 1984, The Quarterly journal of experimental psychology. A, Human experimental psychology.

[25]  S. Klein,et al.  Both separation and eccentricity can limit precise position judgements: A reply to Morgan and Watt , 1989, Vision Research.

[26]  J. Bergen,et al.  A four mechanism model for threshold spatial vision , 1979, Vision Research.

[27]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 1: foundations , 1986 .

[28]  J. Koenderink,et al.  Differential spatial displacement discrimination thresholds for Gabor patches , 1988, Vision Research.

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

[30]  T. Poggio,et al.  Biophysics of Computation: Neurons, Synapses and Membranes , 1984 .

[31]  S. Coren,et al.  Differentiation and decrement in the Mueller-Lyer illusion , 1972 .

[32]  G. Humphreys,et al.  Parallel computation of primitive shape descriptions. , 1991, Journal of experimental psychology. Human perception and performance.

[33]  S. Coren,et al.  Assimilation and contrast illusions: Differences in plasticity , 1982, Perception & psychophysics.

[34]  G. Westheimer The spatial grain of the perifoveal visual field , 1982, Vision Research.

[35]  P. Mountjoy Effects of exposure time and intertrial interval upon decrement to the Müller-Lyer illusion. , 1958, Journal of experimental psychology.

[36]  D. Hubel,et al.  Receptive fields and functional architecture of monkey striate cortex , 1968, The Journal of physiology.

[37]  A. Pressey A Theory of the Mueller-Lyer Illusion , 1967, Perceptual and motor skills.

[38]  R. Watt,et al.  The Weber relation for position is not an artefact of eccentricity , 1989, Vision Research.

[39]  J. Robson,et al.  Application of fourier analysis to the visibility of gratings , 1968, The Journal of physiology.

[40]  T. Oyama Feature Analysers, Optical Illusions, and Figural Aftereffects , 1977, Perception.

[41]  D. P. Andrews,et al.  Acuity for spatial separation as a function of stimulus size , 1978, Vision Research.

[42]  A. Pressey,et al.  An extension of assimilation theory to illusions of size, area, and direction , 1971 .

[43]  S Morinaga,et al.  [Paradox of displacement in geometrical illusion and the problem of dimensions. A contribution to the study of space perception]. , 1965, Shinrigaku kenkyu : The Japanese journal of psychology.

[44]  A. Pressey,et al.  Further developments in the assimilation theory of geometric illusions: The adjacency ,principle , 1976 .